I don't even know what I can say about this...
Apparently no legal/constitutional argument too absurd or far fetched for Dick Cheney.
Wow... All I can say is Wow...
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Scalia wont convict Jack Bauer.
Man... I have no words for this right now. I thought a bunch of law students sitting around arguing about comic books was geeky but this is SOOO much better.
I would love to sit in on a pissing contest between the brightest minds in law disputing the morality of Jack Bauer.
Priceless....
I would love to sit in on a pissing contest between the brightest minds in law disputing the morality of Jack Bauer.
Priceless....
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Divorce
Is it bad that Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of [marriage]? My summer job will be helping people, mostly women of limited means, end their marriages.
Holy crap, I'm a divorce lawyer.
I wonder what my sister in law the PHD family happiness candidate thinks of my kind...
Oppenheimer was a wussy... He only blew up things of this world... I destroy things eternal.
Holy crap, I'm a divorce lawyer.
I wonder what my sister in law the PHD family happiness candidate thinks of my kind...
Oppenheimer was a wussy... He only blew up things of this world... I destroy things eternal.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Sarcasm in Scooter's Sentence
Ha ha... I LOVE the footnote from this order penned by Judge Reggie Walton in the Scooter Libby sentencing circus.
When 12 legal scholars including a professor from Harvard Law and a former Supreme Court nominee manage to put together an amicus brief in just a few short days, the judge takes notice.
"It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it."
D'oh... I think he's calling you out guys.
When 12 legal scholars including a professor from Harvard Law and a former Supreme Court nominee manage to put together an amicus brief in just a few short days, the judge takes notice.
"It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it."
D'oh... I think he's calling you out guys.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Eco-Terroism
They handed down a sentence for Daniel McGowan today. Seven years for arson and criminal conspiracy. You may remember McGowan from the news stories about him (and others) torching some government and private buildings in Oregon. Apparently they did it in the name of the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. They had their reasons but I don't really care to list them all here.
Anyway... The big deal on this one was that the government wanted to add a "terrorism" enhancement to McGowan's sentence. McGowan's supporters are all bent out of shape because they feel the terrorism label is inappropriate. On McGowan's website they use labels like "environmentally motivated property damage," "eco-saboteurs," and "environmental activists."
I have to admit, this kind of pisses me off. Apparently they feel "terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. As long as you agree with the cause, it's not terrorism. Or in their case... It's not terrorism unless somebody gets killed.
Sorry kids... Terrorism isn't about what you did so much as why you did it. Let's take a look at the law... 18 U.S.C. § 2331(1) defines “international terrorism” as activities that:
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended-
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... (there's more but it doesn't really relate to this).
So... It seems as though the government has taken a cause-neutral stance on terrorism. It seems a rather common sense idea. If you were attempting to get citizens or the government to do what you want by committing violent acts against them, it's terrorism.
Now somebody explain to me why McGowan's acts weren't terrorism.
After they torched things they issued statements including language like,
"As long as companies continue to operate and profit off of Mother Earth and Her sentient animal beings, the Animal Liberation Front will continue to target these operations and their insurance companies until they are all out of business."
or
"This action is payback and it is a warning, to all other responsible we do not sleep and we won't quit.”
Seems pretty simple to me... They were burning stuff up (IMHO a "violent act") and then after they did it they sent messages telling people to change what they were doing or face more of the same. If that isn't terrorism... What is?
Sorry kid... Just because you're an educated white guy working for a popular cause doesn't make it ok. Go to jail just like everybody else.
Anyway... The big deal on this one was that the government wanted to add a "terrorism" enhancement to McGowan's sentence. McGowan's supporters are all bent out of shape because they feel the terrorism label is inappropriate. On McGowan's website they use labels like "environmentally motivated property damage," "eco-saboteurs," and "environmental activists."
I have to admit, this kind of pisses me off. Apparently they feel "terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. As long as you agree with the cause, it's not terrorism. Or in their case... It's not terrorism unless somebody gets killed.
Sorry kids... Terrorism isn't about what you did so much as why you did it. Let's take a look at the law... 18 U.S.C. § 2331(1) defines “international terrorism” as activities that:
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended-
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... (there's more but it doesn't really relate to this).
So... It seems as though the government has taken a cause-neutral stance on terrorism. It seems a rather common sense idea. If you were attempting to get citizens or the government to do what you want by committing violent acts against them, it's terrorism.
Now somebody explain to me why McGowan's acts weren't terrorism.
After they torched things they issued statements including language like,
"As long as companies continue to operate and profit off of Mother Earth and Her sentient animal beings, the Animal Liberation Front will continue to target these operations and their insurance companies until they are all out of business."
or
"This action is payback and it is a warning, to all other responsible we do not sleep and we won't quit.”
Seems pretty simple to me... They were burning stuff up (IMHO a "violent act") and then after they did it they sent messages telling people to change what they were doing or face more of the same. If that isn't terrorism... What is?
Sorry kid... Just because you're an educated white guy working for a popular cause doesn't make it ok. Go to jail just like everybody else.
Monday, June 4, 2007
All it takes is a tape measure...
The long awaited carrels have arrived... The 2nd floor is now packed with study spaces for the eager young minds at U of I Law.
"Packed" being the operative word. I have to admit I was a little more than disappointed when I sat down in my new carrel only to find that the new set up was about as roomy as an airline "cheap seat."
I don't want to be too critical. After all, the old carrels were a little packed too. But you have got to be kidding. It is impossible for a student with a window seat to get to the aisle without forcing one (or more) of his/her classmates to stand up. It's worse than a movie theater.
So... As I sat there, the back of my chair bumping against the back of my buddy's, I wondered: How much did these carrels cost? How do they plan to resolve this little problem (because honestly it's not a matter of comfort, it's a matter of function)?
Couldn't this have been avoided with a $5.00 tape measure from Home Depot?
This is why we are lawyers. If we had even the slightest grasp of math, physics, geometry, or common sense, we'd have real jobs.
Update:
I sent an email to the Dean of students. True to his perpetually available form he took 10 minutes out of his day to walk upstairs with me. I have no idea how the problem will be resolved but fortunately I am no longer the only person aware of the problem. Hooray for common sense!
"Packed" being the operative word. I have to admit I was a little more than disappointed when I sat down in my new carrel only to find that the new set up was about as roomy as an airline "cheap seat."
I don't want to be too critical. After all, the old carrels were a little packed too. But you have got to be kidding. It is impossible for a student with a window seat to get to the aisle without forcing one (or more) of his/her classmates to stand up. It's worse than a movie theater.
So... As I sat there, the back of my chair bumping against the back of my buddy's, I wondered: How much did these carrels cost? How do they plan to resolve this little problem (because honestly it's not a matter of comfort, it's a matter of function)?
Couldn't this have been avoided with a $5.00 tape measure from Home Depot?
This is why we are lawyers. If we had even the slightest grasp of math, physics, geometry, or common sense, we'd have real jobs.
Update:
I sent an email to the Dean of students. True to his perpetually available form he took 10 minutes out of his day to walk upstairs with me. I have no idea how the problem will be resolved but fortunately I am no longer the only person aware of the problem. Hooray for common sense!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)