Over at Findlaw.com, columnistMarci Hamilton makes a case for why the Solomon Amendment will remain in place. For those uninitiated into the realm of college funding, the Solomon amendment, the subject of next term's Supreme Court Case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), dictates that schools receiving federal funds must allow miltary recruiters on campus to recruit for their services.
Prof. Hamilton makes a number of good points, but I would like to make another policy one and another, more legal, argument for the Supreme Court. First the legal one. Congress routinely couches the awarding of federal money to states and other public institutions in the language of accepting certain conditions. The most famous one may be from South Dakota v. Dole, a case which arose out of Congress's desire to implement a policy by tying it to federal highway funds. Congress wanted the states to raise the minimum drinking age to 21. Since the states controlled the drinking age, Congress decided to say that if the states wanted their federal highway money, they had to raise the drinking age. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress, by use of hte spending power, could put such reasonable restrictions and strings on the receipt of federal money.
With the Solomon Amendment, Congress did the same thing. In order for colleges, universities, law schools and medical schools, to get federal funds, they must allow military recruiters on campus. Prof. Hamilton makes several good points about what the law doesn't do and it doesn't call upon the law schools to endorse miltary policy (which in this case centers on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy).
Prof. Hamilton also implicitly notes that only the dimmest, dumbest and least educated person would equate a law school's or any school's allowing of military recruiters on campus as a school endorsement of the policy. Given that protests over military recruiters is rampant, it would seem that there are avenues to protest teh military policies without barring recruiters.
But on a more policy and political foundation, I would argue that this lawsuit, while their right, fails to understand one key function of the military--to protect our rights to file stupid lawsuits. Many people find little difficulty in fighting for their beliefs. Some are even willing to die for those beliefs.
However, for those who would support these wayward professors and their followers, take this test. Imagine the one person whose very words, very actions and very existence makes your blood boil. Imagine that person is an American. Now, can you honestly and truly say that you are willing to die for their beliefs?
Most military lawyers will never be presented with the concept of dying for someone else's beliefs. But the military provides an important service to our country and that military needs lawyers and leaders. Where is the military to turn? The service acadmies can provide only so many officers. Thus they services turn to colleges and universities for leaders, to law schools for lawyers and to medical schools for doctors. The Solomon Amendment provides that access and that is all access. The military is still an all-volunteer force.
For the members of FAIR (what a rediculous name), I suggest you do what should be done when you don't like a policy--go lobby Congress. Just like Congress can attach strings to federal funding, Congress has the exclusive jurisdiction to change the rules for the military (it's in the Constitution, you can look it up). I happen to think the don't ask, don't tell policy and the policy against gays in the military is simply ludicrous, but if I wanted to change, I would lobby Congress not go to court where you are doomed to fail.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Sex Ed in Montgomery County Maryland
Having formerly lived in Montgomery County Maryland and being much more interested in education now that my daughter is approaching school age, I have been following what goes on there quite a bit. I have previously reported on the liberal insanity revolving around the sex education curriculum. One of my favorite commentators, Prof. Volokh, posted this in response: "[T]eaching should at least comply with the Constitution, avoid falsehoods, and avoid fallacies. Good motives don't justify bad teaching."
Prof. Volokh also links to a U.S. District Court case brought by the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum which, at least for the time being, has delayed the implementation of an overly morals based sex ed curriculum.
I encourage several aspects of this sex education curriculum, particularly those endorsing tolerance in general of minorities, including minorities based on sexual identification and orientation. I also believe that schools can have a role in teaching the biology of sex. But many of the items in this curriculum are morals based. In addition to being morals based--by morals I mean going beyond the normal "Golden Rule" morality--the documents used to support this curriculum indicte several organized churches for their viewpoints, particularly Baptists. (See some of the quotes from the Court opinoin. While not a Baptist, if I were a parent in Montgomery County and I were a Baptist, I would be suing for defamation. I might not win since it is not directed to me personally, but I would be pretty mad.
For years I have been observing Montgomery County moving so far to the left as to make the normally liberal Maryland look downright centrist. But the problems of a left-leaning education system teaching morality lies in the usurpation of the family as the primary morals educator. leaving aside the issue of many parents abdicating their role as moral instructors for children, I have a problem with my tax dollars being spent to demonize biblical interpretations of a given faith (even one I don't subscribe to) and taking for themselves the role of moral arbitor.
School Boards have a duty to ensure our children leave high school with a worthy education, produce thinking citizens engaged in their community, and create a citizenry with the basic understanding of the world. But this particular curriculum inculcates children with information that, at least in some regards, is patently false. One Montgomery county official made a comment that the county is "like Kansas" in that conservative minded parents are highjacking the teaching of kids. I don't see how being involved in what is being taught their kids is highjacking anything. Is that not what we want parents to do--be engaged?
Prof. Volokh also links to a U.S. District Court case brought by the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum which, at least for the time being, has delayed the implementation of an overly morals based sex ed curriculum.
I encourage several aspects of this sex education curriculum, particularly those endorsing tolerance in general of minorities, including minorities based on sexual identification and orientation. I also believe that schools can have a role in teaching the biology of sex. But many of the items in this curriculum are morals based. In addition to being morals based--by morals I mean going beyond the normal "Golden Rule" morality--the documents used to support this curriculum indicte several organized churches for their viewpoints, particularly Baptists. (See some of the quotes from the Court opinoin. While not a Baptist, if I were a parent in Montgomery County and I were a Baptist, I would be suing for defamation. I might not win since it is not directed to me personally, but I would be pretty mad.
For years I have been observing Montgomery County moving so far to the left as to make the normally liberal Maryland look downright centrist. But the problems of a left-leaning education system teaching morality lies in the usurpation of the family as the primary morals educator. leaving aside the issue of many parents abdicating their role as moral instructors for children, I have a problem with my tax dollars being spent to demonize biblical interpretations of a given faith (even one I don't subscribe to) and taking for themselves the role of moral arbitor.
School Boards have a duty to ensure our children leave high school with a worthy education, produce thinking citizens engaged in their community, and create a citizenry with the basic understanding of the world. But this particular curriculum inculcates children with information that, at least in some regards, is patently false. One Montgomery county official made a comment that the county is "like Kansas" in that conservative minded parents are highjacking the teaching of kids. I don't see how being involved in what is being taught their kids is highjacking anything. Is that not what we want parents to do--be engaged?
Origin of the (College) Species
And here I thought I got vitriolic about the state of modern higher education. An editorial in the The Cornell Daily Sun (courtsey of Discriminations) points out the increasing liberalization of the college campus. Having spent a lot of time on campus in the past ten years, I can honestly say that the concepts of freedom of speech and academic expression are endangered species at most schools. Long gone are the days when a college degree represented a symbol of achievement as a thinker or an active, engaged member of society. More and more, the degree is a symbol of indoctrination (or in some case faux indoctrination) at the feet of some egg-headed pseudo-intellectual who can no more accept dissent than a five year old.
While I am certain that, over time, the scarily liberal make-up of college and university faculties will shift back toward the right, I wonder whether the current make-up of faculties is doing a much larger disservice to our young people than was orignially thought.
A college professor should encourage dissenting viewpoints and more over help the student to develop their thinking and critical analysis skills. Just because a student's viewpoint does not agree with their own is no reason to persecute them. After all, the student's attack on your belief system may just serve to sharpen your own opinions.
While I am certain that, over time, the scarily liberal make-up of college and university faculties will shift back toward the right, I wonder whether the current make-up of faculties is doing a much larger disservice to our young people than was orignially thought.
A college professor should encourage dissenting viewpoints and more over help the student to develop their thinking and critical analysis skills. Just because a student's viewpoint does not agree with their own is no reason to persecute them. After all, the student's attack on your belief system may just serve to sharpen your own opinions.
Hasta Lasagna--Don't Get Any On Ya!
I have returned after the delay for studying for my last set of law school exams. In many ways the event is more than a little anti-climatic, having worked four years for this, I wonder why is seems such a let down.
My father asked me yesterday what I was going to do with all my new found time. The answer is simple, spend time with my family and friends.
I will also be returning to some more regular blogging now that the stress and strain of exams have passed.
My father asked me yesterday what I was going to do with all my new found time. The answer is simple, spend time with my family and friends.
I will also be returning to some more regular blogging now that the stress and strain of exams have passed.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Law School Retrospective--Pt. 3--Second Class Citizens
I have had it!!!! (Here comes a rant so be prepared).
As an evening division student at Catholic Law, I am used to having issues with the administration. Earlier in my law school career I got truly bent out of shape about some scheduling issues. How can an administration, with a straight face, declare that a class held at 10:00 am truly be considered a Day/Evening class, meaning the class is open to all students? Even the most supportive of employers of evening division students will not permit employees to be gone in the middle of the morning three days a week!!! For that matter, many of the courses for evening division students often begin at 4:00 pm or 4:30 pm, which makes it difficult for students to attend. Finally, how can a school justify requiring a course (Professional Responsibility-which I admit is necessary), offer every semester for day division students and only once a year for evening division students?
These were just some of my issues with the administration over time. But this most recent one just adds insult to injury.
Today, I find, from a classmate, that the evening division was completely slighted in the annual toasts to the graduating class. Teh school posts a nice little write-up about the toast for day division students, but not one mention of the toast given for evening division students the night before. Not even a mention!!!
Thus I lend this advice to future evening division law students. You will find, in addition to all the regular stuff faced by law students across the country, the added burden of dealing with an administration who treats the evening division as an afterthought, as a revenue stream rather than students who have something valuable to offer the school. While I have enjoyed my classes, my professors and particularly my classmates, I do feel, to a significant extent, that I have been slighted by the administration--a group of people who have renenged on their promise to treat evening students, to the extent possible, the same as day division students.
As an evening division student at Catholic Law, I am used to having issues with the administration. Earlier in my law school career I got truly bent out of shape about some scheduling issues. How can an administration, with a straight face, declare that a class held at 10:00 am truly be considered a Day/Evening class, meaning the class is open to all students? Even the most supportive of employers of evening division students will not permit employees to be gone in the middle of the morning three days a week!!! For that matter, many of the courses for evening division students often begin at 4:00 pm or 4:30 pm, which makes it difficult for students to attend. Finally, how can a school justify requiring a course (Professional Responsibility-which I admit is necessary), offer every semester for day division students and only once a year for evening division students?
These were just some of my issues with the administration over time. But this most recent one just adds insult to injury.
Today, I find, from a classmate, that the evening division was completely slighted in the annual toasts to the graduating class. Teh school posts a nice little write-up about the toast for day division students, but not one mention of the toast given for evening division students the night before. Not even a mention!!!
Thus I lend this advice to future evening division law students. You will find, in addition to all the regular stuff faced by law students across the country, the added burden of dealing with an administration who treats the evening division as an afterthought, as a revenue stream rather than students who have something valuable to offer the school. While I have enjoyed my classes, my professors and particularly my classmates, I do feel, to a significant extent, that I have been slighted by the administration--a group of people who have renenged on their promise to treat evening students, to the extent possible, the same as day division students.
Right on the Left Coast: Darren and the CTA
I have read Right on the Left Coast for several months now and I really enjoy his take on the California Teachers Association. Darren has be involved in a running, if rhetorical, battle with the CTA over the compulsory membership if he is a teacher in California.
But the post below offers a plethora of evidence to support my belief that the teachers' unions have become an uncontainable beast who believes they have the right to comment not just on issue related to teacher employment or even education policy, but on policy in general--often in complete disregard for a significant minority of their membership.
I have long contended that the biggest impediment to successful improvement in education is the teachers unions. On a basic level, I have no objection to unions if they confine their activities to protecting the working rights and conditions of the membership. That is, teachers unions should be worried only about the working contracts, conditions and negotiations related to the employment of their members. Teachers unions, because they cannot adequately claim to speak for all, or even most, teachers' opinions, should not be in teh business of commenting on education policy. Individual teachers may be consulted on policy, but not the unions.
When a union says that such and such education policy is good or bad for students, I tend to think that the policy is bad for the UNION and not even necessarily bad for the teachers, just bad for the union. For the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers, the goal of improving the education of students remains several rungs down the ladder of priorities. The unions lose their credibility when they begin speaking about worrying about the kids because if they truly cared about the education of children, they would shut up.
When one boils down the argument the NEA posits in their lawsuit against the Department of Education, it is easy to see that not only does the NEA have no credibility in the education arena, they have zero credibility in the legal arena either. The fact that the NEA is using compulsorily derived membership dues to fund this quixotic campaign against the NCLB Act galls me even further. A basic review of Congress's spending power cases would reveal to even the densest first year law student that the requirements of hte NCLB are only imposed if the school district accepts federal funds--which it is free to do. If you take the money, you take the strings attached. Such a point was made by the union's own general counsel (see news reporting here). Yet the NEA has gone forward with a suit sure to fail--and expending resources while doing, resources that a large portion of the membership would rather see spent in other ways.
By the way, the case teh decided that Congress could impose conditions on the acceptance of federal funds is found in South Dakota v. Dole (483 U.S. 283 (1987)), which the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may impose resrictions and conditions on the receipt of federal highway funds that encourage the states to raise the legal drinking age to 21. States can voluntarily forgo those restrictions but doing so costs them the funds. While it doesn't seem like much of a choice, the Courts have ruled that the choice exists and it is constitutional.
I hope Darren keeps up his crusade in California and I will eagerly await the next story of imperiousity in the CTA.
Right on the Left Coast: Views From a Conservative Teacher: From Her Majesty's Column
But the post below offers a plethora of evidence to support my belief that the teachers' unions have become an uncontainable beast who believes they have the right to comment not just on issue related to teacher employment or even education policy, but on policy in general--often in complete disregard for a significant minority of their membership.
I have long contended that the biggest impediment to successful improvement in education is the teachers unions. On a basic level, I have no objection to unions if they confine their activities to protecting the working rights and conditions of the membership. That is, teachers unions should be worried only about the working contracts, conditions and negotiations related to the employment of their members. Teachers unions, because they cannot adequately claim to speak for all, or even most, teachers' opinions, should not be in teh business of commenting on education policy. Individual teachers may be consulted on policy, but not the unions.
When a union says that such and such education policy is good or bad for students, I tend to think that the policy is bad for the UNION and not even necessarily bad for the teachers, just bad for the union. For the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers, the goal of improving the education of students remains several rungs down the ladder of priorities. The unions lose their credibility when they begin speaking about worrying about the kids because if they truly cared about the education of children, they would shut up.
When one boils down the argument the NEA posits in their lawsuit against the Department of Education, it is easy to see that not only does the NEA have no credibility in the education arena, they have zero credibility in the legal arena either. The fact that the NEA is using compulsorily derived membership dues to fund this quixotic campaign against the NCLB Act galls me even further. A basic review of Congress's spending power cases would reveal to even the densest first year law student that the requirements of hte NCLB are only imposed if the school district accepts federal funds--which it is free to do. If you take the money, you take the strings attached. Such a point was made by the union's own general counsel (see news reporting here). Yet the NEA has gone forward with a suit sure to fail--and expending resources while doing, resources that a large portion of the membership would rather see spent in other ways.
By the way, the case teh decided that Congress could impose conditions on the acceptance of federal funds is found in South Dakota v. Dole (483 U.S. 283 (1987)), which the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may impose resrictions and conditions on the receipt of federal highway funds that encourage the states to raise the legal drinking age to 21. States can voluntarily forgo those restrictions but doing so costs them the funds. While it doesn't seem like much of a choice, the Courts have ruled that the choice exists and it is constitutional.
I hope Darren keeps up his crusade in California and I will eagerly await the next story of imperiousity in the CTA.
Right on the Left Coast: Views From a Conservative Teacher: From Her Majesty's Column
Friday, April 29, 2005
Law School Retrospective--part 2
So you want to go to law school? Congratulations, you have now signed up for one of the most interesting educational experiences around. But before you send in your tuition deposit, here are a couple of suggestions.
Leave your ego at the door.
Law schools all over the country are populated with students who are smart, many of them smarter than you. I don't care if you graduated summa cum laude at your undergrad school--chances are there are 10 other people in your law school class who can go toe to toe with you in academics and may another 10 whose academic skills will leave you envious.
Generally, law school classes include a self-selected population of undergrad students who all graduated in the top third or quarter of their college classes, so just because you did doesn't mean you are the smartest person in the room. Because of the nature of law school classes, your law school classmates don't care about your academic credentials and here is a big tip--neither will your professors.
One last thing about egos. Don't be afraid or embarassed either. In law school, if no one cares that you graduated number 1 in your college class, they also don't care if you didn't. Stand up for yourself, make a strong argument and if you lose, stand up, dust yourself off and try again.
Be Ready to Work--hard
Law school is a grind--not rocket science. In many respects, law school is more about working hard and being willing to work hard than sheer brilliance. I have know students who, through sheer force of will and dedication to working, have done well, despite all expectations, including their own expectations.
Working to be prepared for class, doing the reading, taking notes, showing up for class. These are the successes to law school. Professors will respect the student to keeps trying, who comes for additional input or help. Most professors love talking to students (at least mine did) and welcome any chance to help a law student become a good lawyer.
In my time in law school, I have learned that the students who do well work hard. End of story.
Learn to Analyze Failures
In law school, at some point or another, a professor is going to tear you down and it will suck. In many repects, the first time it happens can mean the difference between success and failure in law school. For most of us, the first time the Socratic gauntlet knocks us cold, it can be a punishing experience because we are not used to such treatment. Until this point, we were used to being right. But law school is not about being right as much as it is about being critical. When you fail in the Socratic method, and you will, no matter what. The most important lesson is to discover what went wrong. An example.
In my Contracts class during my first year, we were talking about a case involving consideration. This was probably three weeks into my law school career. I was named in teh Socratic lottery and the questioning began. I made a rash statement about the nature of consideration and how it had to be tangible and of real value. Follow up questions soon painted me into a corner and I could see what was coming--I was trapped into a failing argument. The failure didn't come for about three more questions, but I saw it coming. My argument was based on not on real legal principles but on a mistake notion about the nature of consideration. What was the lesson--I learned that it doesn't matter to teh professor if you are right or wrong, but what matters is that you learn to think on your feet and try.
You see, law school is the place in the legal profession where you can make mistakes and the consequences are not life or career threatening. Law school is where you can be wrong and not get sued for malpractice. Teh second lesson I learned is that by being active in class, even if you are wrong, you still learn something. To this day, I have no trouble putting my hand in the air. I am not embarrased and each time I analyze what happened and what could be better. Such is the nature of law school.
Don't Try to Impress Others with Your Schedule
You never know who you are sitting next to in class. I once had a classmate lean over and tell me he was studying and going to class 12 hours a day. Because I thought he was a smart aleck who needed to be taken down a notch, I replied that I was thoroughly unimpressed. Noting that a classmate of ours had given birth a week earlier and was back in class, I said that was impressive. Any schmuck can work hard for 12 hours a day, it takes great ability to work 12 hours a day and take care of an infant.
I also told him that I was an evening division student and could care less what his schedule was when I was struggling with mine.
More to come.
Leave your ego at the door.
Law schools all over the country are populated with students who are smart, many of them smarter than you. I don't care if you graduated summa cum laude at your undergrad school--chances are there are 10 other people in your law school class who can go toe to toe with you in academics and may another 10 whose academic skills will leave you envious.
Generally, law school classes include a self-selected population of undergrad students who all graduated in the top third or quarter of their college classes, so just because you did doesn't mean you are the smartest person in the room. Because of the nature of law school classes, your law school classmates don't care about your academic credentials and here is a big tip--neither will your professors.
One last thing about egos. Don't be afraid or embarassed either. In law school, if no one cares that you graduated number 1 in your college class, they also don't care if you didn't. Stand up for yourself, make a strong argument and if you lose, stand up, dust yourself off and try again.
Be Ready to Work--hard
Law school is a grind--not rocket science. In many respects, law school is more about working hard and being willing to work hard than sheer brilliance. I have know students who, through sheer force of will and dedication to working, have done well, despite all expectations, including their own expectations.
Working to be prepared for class, doing the reading, taking notes, showing up for class. These are the successes to law school. Professors will respect the student to keeps trying, who comes for additional input or help. Most professors love talking to students (at least mine did) and welcome any chance to help a law student become a good lawyer.
In my time in law school, I have learned that the students who do well work hard. End of story.
Learn to Analyze Failures
In law school, at some point or another, a professor is going to tear you down and it will suck. In many repects, the first time it happens can mean the difference between success and failure in law school. For most of us, the first time the Socratic gauntlet knocks us cold, it can be a punishing experience because we are not used to such treatment. Until this point, we were used to being right. But law school is not about being right as much as it is about being critical. When you fail in the Socratic method, and you will, no matter what. The most important lesson is to discover what went wrong. An example.
In my Contracts class during my first year, we were talking about a case involving consideration. This was probably three weeks into my law school career. I was named in teh Socratic lottery and the questioning began. I made a rash statement about the nature of consideration and how it had to be tangible and of real value. Follow up questions soon painted me into a corner and I could see what was coming--I was trapped into a failing argument. The failure didn't come for about three more questions, but I saw it coming. My argument was based on not on real legal principles but on a mistake notion about the nature of consideration. What was the lesson--I learned that it doesn't matter to teh professor if you are right or wrong, but what matters is that you learn to think on your feet and try.
You see, law school is the place in the legal profession where you can make mistakes and the consequences are not life or career threatening. Law school is where you can be wrong and not get sued for malpractice. Teh second lesson I learned is that by being active in class, even if you are wrong, you still learn something. To this day, I have no trouble putting my hand in the air. I am not embarrased and each time I analyze what happened and what could be better. Such is the nature of law school.
Don't Try to Impress Others with Your Schedule
You never know who you are sitting next to in class. I once had a classmate lean over and tell me he was studying and going to class 12 hours a day. Because I thought he was a smart aleck who needed to be taken down a notch, I replied that I was thoroughly unimpressed. Noting that a classmate of ours had given birth a week earlier and was back in class, I said that was impressive. Any schmuck can work hard for 12 hours a day, it takes great ability to work 12 hours a day and take care of an infant.
I also told him that I was an evening division student and could care less what his schedule was when I was struggling with mine.
More to come.
Democrats--Define for Me "Middle Class"
I had an interesting conversation with a Democratic friend of mine this morning who was complaining (already) the the Bush plan to tie Social Security Beneifts to income was going to harm the middle class. Bush's Social Security plan now includes a means test, which just makes sense.
So here is the question I asked of my friend (whom I love dearly and love to argue with dearly). Define for me "middle class?" After a little hesitation, she declared herself middle class. When I pointed out that the salary she and her husband pull down together (approaching $250,000 per year) put her solidly in the top 5% of all income based on 2003 Census Data, she paused. By the way, if that is middle class, sign me up. I could pay off my student loans, my house and my credit card bills.
So that is my question to all Democrats, "How do you define middle class?" I need specifics. I need an income range for a household. If the bottom limit is $30,000, what is the upper limit? I need details ladies and gentlemen, not rhetoric.
So here is the question I asked of my friend (whom I love dearly and love to argue with dearly). Define for me "middle class?" After a little hesitation, she declared herself middle class. When I pointed out that the salary she and her husband pull down together (approaching $250,000 per year) put her solidly in the top 5% of all income based on 2003 Census Data, she paused. By the way, if that is middle class, sign me up. I could pay off my student loans, my house and my credit card bills.
So that is my question to all Democrats, "How do you define middle class?" I need specifics. I need an income range for a household. If the bottom limit is $30,000, what is the upper limit? I need details ladies and gentlemen, not rhetoric.
The Filibuster
Legislative tactics have always amused me, often to the point of hysterical laughter. What has me almost rolling on the floor laughing is the filibuster. The filibuster has become a joke, the issue of the nuclear option and the Democratic insistence that the filinbuster is good for America.
Alright, fine. I understand that the filibuster is a tool to protect minority rights in the Senate. Fine, but I agree with Linda Chavez, that if the minority party or the minority on any issue wants to filibuster, I want to see a filibuster on C-SPAN2. I want to see a Senator stand on the floor of hte Senate and filibuster--meaning that he/she has to keep talking, until either they drop or someone can invoke cloture.
If the Democrats want to filibuster judicial nominations, then filibuster. They would grind all work on the Senate floor to a halt. Nothing would get done.
However, Democrats will never want to do this for several reasons.
First, Senator Reid and his colleagues would be exposed for what they are, a bunch of whiny little children who are upset that they have not gotten their way or that they are in the minority. As whiny little children are prone to do, they have forgotten history, Chavez points out:
In 1975, senators once again modified their own rules, reducing to 60 senators the number needed to force a vote. At the time, it was mostly Democrats, who were in the majority, who favored limits on minority rights. As Sen. Edward Kennedy said at the time, "Again and again in recent years, the filibuster has been the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special interest groups. Too often, it has enabled a small minority of the Senate to prevent a strong majority from working its will and serving the public interest."
Sen. Kennedy, you can't have it both ways. If you are in teh minority you can't claim the high road because when you were the majority party, you sought to limit the filibuster.
Second, filibustering on something like judicial nominees today seems just a petty reaction to not having a Democrat in the White House. In 1990, Justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate by a vote of 98-0. Scalia is often the Democratic poster child for a judiciary run amok. Again, you can't have it both ways.
Third, truly filibustering, meaning talking a bill to death rather than threatening to talk a bill to death are vastly different things. If you have that strong a belief that something is inherently bad, then show us a little backbone and prove it. Don't hide behind an anonymous threat, rather show the public what you believe.
Fourth and finally, tying up the Senate floor on judicial nominees or anything supported by the White House or the majority runs the risk of being called obstructionist--which today is a term just this side of Communist. If the Democrats want to win control, they have to do better than just saying No.
Senator Frist should just get a rule change and make the filibuster a real filibuster.
Alright, fine. I understand that the filibuster is a tool to protect minority rights in the Senate. Fine, but I agree with Linda Chavez, that if the minority party or the minority on any issue wants to filibuster, I want to see a filibuster on C-SPAN2. I want to see a Senator stand on the floor of hte Senate and filibuster--meaning that he/she has to keep talking, until either they drop or someone can invoke cloture.
If the Democrats want to filibuster judicial nominations, then filibuster. They would grind all work on the Senate floor to a halt. Nothing would get done.
However, Democrats will never want to do this for several reasons.
First, Senator Reid and his colleagues would be exposed for what they are, a bunch of whiny little children who are upset that they have not gotten their way or that they are in the minority. As whiny little children are prone to do, they have forgotten history, Chavez points out:
In 1975, senators once again modified their own rules, reducing to 60 senators the number needed to force a vote. At the time, it was mostly Democrats, who were in the majority, who favored limits on minority rights. As Sen. Edward Kennedy said at the time, "Again and again in recent years, the filibuster has been the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special interest groups. Too often, it has enabled a small minority of the Senate to prevent a strong majority from working its will and serving the public interest."
Sen. Kennedy, you can't have it both ways. If you are in teh minority you can't claim the high road because when you were the majority party, you sought to limit the filibuster.
Second, filibustering on something like judicial nominees today seems just a petty reaction to not having a Democrat in the White House. In 1990, Justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate by a vote of 98-0. Scalia is often the Democratic poster child for a judiciary run amok. Again, you can't have it both ways.
Third, truly filibustering, meaning talking a bill to death rather than threatening to talk a bill to death are vastly different things. If you have that strong a belief that something is inherently bad, then show us a little backbone and prove it. Don't hide behind an anonymous threat, rather show the public what you believe.
Fourth and finally, tying up the Senate floor on judicial nominees or anything supported by the White House or the majority runs the risk of being called obstructionist--which today is a term just this side of Communist. If the Democrats want to win control, they have to do better than just saying No.
Senator Frist should just get a rule change and make the filibuster a real filibuster.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Law School--A Retrospective- Pt. 1
Given that I am nearing the end of my law school career at the Columbus School of Law at Catholic Univeristy, I thought I would take some time and space in this here blog and let everyone know about my experiences. In many ways, I wish I had this outlet four years ago when I started. This is the first in a series of posts (the number of which is unknows) on this subject.
Real fast, I would like to say that I loved law school. I thought it was a fantastic educational experience for me and it has certainly changed the way I look at problem solving, the law, politics and the interaction between people.
However, for every rosy experience there is always something that did not go so well. I have a great many beefs about law school, particularly related to the manner in which evening division students were treated by the administration (more on that in future posts).
Because I had a wife, daughter on the way, dog and a mortgage when I decided to go to law school, I pretty much had no choice but to go to evening division law school, or for those who look down their noeses as "evening people," I attended part time. When ever I say that I hear one of two responses. The first is "Oh, you are one of those" type tones that suggests that somehow my legal education is somehow inferior. The other is incredulity--"I don't know how you did it."
Here is my answer--I took the same course as any law student. I took contracts, property, torts, civil procedure, criminal procedure, constitutional law, professional responsibility, commercial transactions, corporations, agency and partnerships. In short my curriculum was no different than any other law student's course load, the difference is that I took my course over the course of four years rather than three.
The life of an evening division law student with a family is one very large exercise in time management. Now that I am graduating, I can tell you, I get more done in a shorter period of time than most people because I have to concentrate and squeeze the most out of my time. I have to prioritize, I have to schedule and I had to give things up. The hardest thing for me was losing family time and time with my friends. For example, there were many semesters when I would say goodnight to my daughter on Sunday and then not see her in a conscious state until Friday evening. There were times when I wouldn't see my wife awake for two or three days. There is no day division student who has to do that.
I got married six years ago, after I started law school, I saw the best man in my wedding a grand total of about 5 times in four years, and one of those times was his wedding. That is what you give up, time with friends.
I am not suggesting that I would change anything, but it is hard and it is not for everyone. But as with anything there are sacrifices and those sacrifices have to be worth it in the end.
Real fast, I would like to say that I loved law school. I thought it was a fantastic educational experience for me and it has certainly changed the way I look at problem solving, the law, politics and the interaction between people.
However, for every rosy experience there is always something that did not go so well. I have a great many beefs about law school, particularly related to the manner in which evening division students were treated by the administration (more on that in future posts).
Because I had a wife, daughter on the way, dog and a mortgage when I decided to go to law school, I pretty much had no choice but to go to evening division law school, or for those who look down their noeses as "evening people," I attended part time. When ever I say that I hear one of two responses. The first is "Oh, you are one of those" type tones that suggests that somehow my legal education is somehow inferior. The other is incredulity--"I don't know how you did it."
Here is my answer--I took the same course as any law student. I took contracts, property, torts, civil procedure, criminal procedure, constitutional law, professional responsibility, commercial transactions, corporations, agency and partnerships. In short my curriculum was no different than any other law student's course load, the difference is that I took my course over the course of four years rather than three.
The life of an evening division law student with a family is one very large exercise in time management. Now that I am graduating, I can tell you, I get more done in a shorter period of time than most people because I have to concentrate and squeeze the most out of my time. I have to prioritize, I have to schedule and I had to give things up. The hardest thing for me was losing family time and time with my friends. For example, there were many semesters when I would say goodnight to my daughter on Sunday and then not see her in a conscious state until Friday evening. There were times when I wouldn't see my wife awake for two or three days. There is no day division student who has to do that.
I got married six years ago, after I started law school, I saw the best man in my wedding a grand total of about 5 times in four years, and one of those times was his wedding. That is what you give up, time with friends.
I am not suggesting that I would change anything, but it is hard and it is not for everyone. But as with anything there are sacrifices and those sacrifices have to be worth it in the end.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Carnival of Education
Be sure to check stories about and by education bloggers over at the Carnival of Education.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Handcuffing a 5-year old
Joanne Jacobs has this post about the handcuffing incident in Florida of a 5 year old girl. You can also view the videos provided by the family's attorney. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this incident. This will be a long post-so you are hereby warned.
First, it is obvious that the child was completely out of control. For all those people out there who said the teachers should have done more to control the child, listen carefully to the sound when you hear someone off-camera saying not to touch the child. Florida does not allow teachers and administrators to touch kids other than to keep the child safe--so physical restraint is out.
Which leads me to my first suggestion--the schools need to be able to physically restrain a child. The lack of discipline in the classroom is related to the fact that teachers have no means of enforcing the discipline. Sure they can talk to kids, they can put kids in a corner, but they can't restrain a child for any reason other than to protect teh child's safety--to do otherwise invites a lawsuit. In this case, the lawsuit is already coming.
I also think that that idea of corporal punishment needs to come back. While I would prefer a disciplined classroom based on respect for the teacher and other students, a discipline classroom based a little on fear is not such a bad thing. It is in our nature to fear pain, that is how we learn not to put our hand in a fire, for example. Thus, if a student behaves because they fear the pain of corporal punishment, then I am fine with that.
Before getting to the legal stuff, I would like to point out that I think the police officers did exactly the right thing in one respect. One officer said some to the effect that the child had been warned that she would be handcuffed if she crossed the line again. You cannot threaten a child with consequences and not follow through. My daughter knows if she misbehaves repeatedly after being warned, then the consequence is she loses toys. If I don't carry through on the threat she learns quickly that the threat is meaningless and will continue to misbehave. I don't think the cops needed to put handcuffs on the child, but I will guarantee you this, the child will always associate those handcuffs with her bad behavior and if that serves as a deterrent, I am fine with that as well.
Onto the legal stuff. The police crossed a line and there should be a consequence, albeit a minor one. I would imagine that the parents are going to sue the police for several thousands of dollars in damages. However, if I were the police department, I would ask for a trial, admit liability and ask for the award of just $1.00 in damages. The parents of this child should not get a windfall because they cannot teach their child to respect authority. The police need to be better controlled and shouldn't have to resort to the threat of handcuffs for a 5 year old, but once made they carried it out which is fine with me. I realize that the position sounds a little wishy-washy, but that is the case. The officer should be reprimanded, but again in a light manner.
But here is the capper, if I were the attorney for the school system, I would be filing a suit against the parents for vandalism, battery and possibly assault. The theory of liability is based in part on the theory of liability that dog owners have when the dog bites someone. I am not suggesting treating the child like a dog, but the logic, I believe is sound.
Under tort law, if you own a dog that bites someone, the first bite is more or less free. However, the dog owner is considered to be on notice that their dog bites people. It is the owner's duty to train their dog not to bite humans, restrain the dog, or prevent contact between the dog and other people. If the dog bites someone again, the owner is liable. They had a duty to prevent the second biting and failure to do so is a tort for which the owner is liable, even though the dog did what was, in some respects natural.
There have been tort cases where children as young as six or seven and their parents have been held liable for the conduct of kids, for actions such as pulling a chair out from under someone as they sit down or hitting someone with a baseball bat. So there is precedent for holding young kids liable for their torts. (Thanks to Prof. Kelly at Catholic University for teaching me that).
But a better theory is the "dog owner theory." From reports I have heard, this is not the child's first outburst. Thus the parents have been put on notice that the child's behavior is in appropriate. Even five year olds can be taught some modicum of self-control. The parents have a duty to ensure their child does not hit other people or destroy other people's property. I have a three year old daughter who knows that hitting other people or breaking other people's things is not approriate behavior and will be punished with a nose to nose view of the wall followed by apologies to all involved. As a result, she knows when she has crossed the line. The child in Florida has had no such instruction despite the parent's knowledge that the child is prone to such behavior.
To prove a tort, a plaintiff must show a duty existed, the duty had been breached, a harm resulted and the breach of the duty cause the harm. I think it is pretty clear that the parents had a duty to teach the child to respect the authority of the teachers and principals at the child's school. The parents had notice that the child is prone to outbursts, including striking others. The parents, like the dog owner who bit someone, had a duty to teach their child to respect authority and not hit someone, restrain the child or keep the child out of such situation. Since the parents can't physically restrain the child while she is at school and probably can't keep her out of school. Thus instruction is their only option.
The breach seems pretty obvious, the child acted out, thus the parents failed in their duty to prevent such behavior. Like the dog owner, liability is imputed to the parents even if the actions of their child are, to some extent, the natural behavior of a child.
The failure of the parents to follow through with their duty is the cause of the harms. If the child had been taught to behave and respect authority, respect people in general and their belongings, then but for the child's behavior and the parents' delinquency in their duty, the harms to the teacher, the child's classmates and the assistant principle would not have occured.
So what are the harms, simple--the child disrupted the class and the class had to leave the room! That means those kids had their day disrupted. There was damage to the classroom and the principal's office that needed to be cleaned up (the vandalism). That means the teacher, the principal and probably the school's janitorial staff had to clean up after the child, meaning time and money spent cleaning when they could have been doing something else. While the child may not have been strong enough to actually harm the assistant principal, she did batter the woman. Battery is the unwanted touching of a person by another. Intent to harm is not required for a battery. Finally, as a policy matter, no teacher or school administrator should have to suffer the indignity of being struck by a student, no matter what the child's age.
As to damages, we probably aren't talking much, maybe a few hundred dollars of time and supplies to repair the vandalism. But the damages are not the point.
Tort lawsuit are used regularly to change behavior, often successfully. A few lawsuits by the schools against parents for failing to teach their children proper behavior will induce parents to teach their children not to hit people or destroy property.
For far too long, parents have abdicated their responsiblity for teaching responsible behavior to the schools. The schools have a role to play in proper social behavior, but for the most part, schools are their to educate children.
One final note, the extremity of the case is what makes news. If this had been a ten year old child, or 13 or 16, then we would not be having this discussion. But just because the child is five does not absolve her or her parents from responsibility. I sincerely hope the school sues the parents.
First, it is obvious that the child was completely out of control. For all those people out there who said the teachers should have done more to control the child, listen carefully to the sound when you hear someone off-camera saying not to touch the child. Florida does not allow teachers and administrators to touch kids other than to keep the child safe--so physical restraint is out.
Which leads me to my first suggestion--the schools need to be able to physically restrain a child. The lack of discipline in the classroom is related to the fact that teachers have no means of enforcing the discipline. Sure they can talk to kids, they can put kids in a corner, but they can't restrain a child for any reason other than to protect teh child's safety--to do otherwise invites a lawsuit. In this case, the lawsuit is already coming.
I also think that that idea of corporal punishment needs to come back. While I would prefer a disciplined classroom based on respect for the teacher and other students, a discipline classroom based a little on fear is not such a bad thing. It is in our nature to fear pain, that is how we learn not to put our hand in a fire, for example. Thus, if a student behaves because they fear the pain of corporal punishment, then I am fine with that.
Before getting to the legal stuff, I would like to point out that I think the police officers did exactly the right thing in one respect. One officer said some to the effect that the child had been warned that she would be handcuffed if she crossed the line again. You cannot threaten a child with consequences and not follow through. My daughter knows if she misbehaves repeatedly after being warned, then the consequence is she loses toys. If I don't carry through on the threat she learns quickly that the threat is meaningless and will continue to misbehave. I don't think the cops needed to put handcuffs on the child, but I will guarantee you this, the child will always associate those handcuffs with her bad behavior and if that serves as a deterrent, I am fine with that as well.
Onto the legal stuff. The police crossed a line and there should be a consequence, albeit a minor one. I would imagine that the parents are going to sue the police for several thousands of dollars in damages. However, if I were the police department, I would ask for a trial, admit liability and ask for the award of just $1.00 in damages. The parents of this child should not get a windfall because they cannot teach their child to respect authority. The police need to be better controlled and shouldn't have to resort to the threat of handcuffs for a 5 year old, but once made they carried it out which is fine with me. I realize that the position sounds a little wishy-washy, but that is the case. The officer should be reprimanded, but again in a light manner.
But here is the capper, if I were the attorney for the school system, I would be filing a suit against the parents for vandalism, battery and possibly assault. The theory of liability is based in part on the theory of liability that dog owners have when the dog bites someone. I am not suggesting treating the child like a dog, but the logic, I believe is sound.
Under tort law, if you own a dog that bites someone, the first bite is more or less free. However, the dog owner is considered to be on notice that their dog bites people. It is the owner's duty to train their dog not to bite humans, restrain the dog, or prevent contact between the dog and other people. If the dog bites someone again, the owner is liable. They had a duty to prevent the second biting and failure to do so is a tort for which the owner is liable, even though the dog did what was, in some respects natural.
There have been tort cases where children as young as six or seven and their parents have been held liable for the conduct of kids, for actions such as pulling a chair out from under someone as they sit down or hitting someone with a baseball bat. So there is precedent for holding young kids liable for their torts. (Thanks to Prof. Kelly at Catholic University for teaching me that).
But a better theory is the "dog owner theory." From reports I have heard, this is not the child's first outburst. Thus the parents have been put on notice that the child's behavior is in appropriate. Even five year olds can be taught some modicum of self-control. The parents have a duty to ensure their child does not hit other people or destroy other people's property. I have a three year old daughter who knows that hitting other people or breaking other people's things is not approriate behavior and will be punished with a nose to nose view of the wall followed by apologies to all involved. As a result, she knows when she has crossed the line. The child in Florida has had no such instruction despite the parent's knowledge that the child is prone to such behavior.
To prove a tort, a plaintiff must show a duty existed, the duty had been breached, a harm resulted and the breach of the duty cause the harm. I think it is pretty clear that the parents had a duty to teach the child to respect the authority of the teachers and principals at the child's school. The parents had notice that the child is prone to outbursts, including striking others. The parents, like the dog owner who bit someone, had a duty to teach their child to respect authority and not hit someone, restrain the child or keep the child out of such situation. Since the parents can't physically restrain the child while she is at school and probably can't keep her out of school. Thus instruction is their only option.
The breach seems pretty obvious, the child acted out, thus the parents failed in their duty to prevent such behavior. Like the dog owner, liability is imputed to the parents even if the actions of their child are, to some extent, the natural behavior of a child.
The failure of the parents to follow through with their duty is the cause of the harms. If the child had been taught to behave and respect authority, respect people in general and their belongings, then but for the child's behavior and the parents' delinquency in their duty, the harms to the teacher, the child's classmates and the assistant principle would not have occured.
So what are the harms, simple--the child disrupted the class and the class had to leave the room! That means those kids had their day disrupted. There was damage to the classroom and the principal's office that needed to be cleaned up (the vandalism). That means the teacher, the principal and probably the school's janitorial staff had to clean up after the child, meaning time and money spent cleaning when they could have been doing something else. While the child may not have been strong enough to actually harm the assistant principal, she did batter the woman. Battery is the unwanted touching of a person by another. Intent to harm is not required for a battery. Finally, as a policy matter, no teacher or school administrator should have to suffer the indignity of being struck by a student, no matter what the child's age.
As to damages, we probably aren't talking much, maybe a few hundred dollars of time and supplies to repair the vandalism. But the damages are not the point.
Tort lawsuit are used regularly to change behavior, often successfully. A few lawsuits by the schools against parents for failing to teach their children proper behavior will induce parents to teach their children not to hit people or destroy property.
For far too long, parents have abdicated their responsiblity for teaching responsible behavior to the schools. The schools have a role to play in proper social behavior, but for the most part, schools are their to educate children.
One final note, the extremity of the case is what makes news. If this had been a ten year old child, or 13 or 16, then we would not be having this discussion. But just because the child is five does not absolve her or her parents from responsibility. I sincerely hope the school sues the parents.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Lawsuit over No Child Left Behind Act by NEA
On Wednesday, the NEA and several school districts filed suit against the government regarding what they call unfunded mandates regarding the No Child Left Behind Act.
Of course, lest anyone forget, this lawsuit is about one thing--power.
Sure the NEA talks a game that NCLB is about unfunded mandates and all that hullabaloo, but really the NEA is angered that the single most import piece of educational legislation was passed despite their negative endorsement and that such liberal icons as Ted Kennedy voted for it. For an organziation who claims to be in favor of improving education, their actions don't really support such a statement.
NEA's lawsuit further supports my contention that the biggest criminal in public education today are teacher's unions. Please note, I am not saying teachers, but rather their unions. Most teachers work very hard to educate our kids, but are hampered on two fronts--the administration and the union.
Any movement that provides choice for parents is bad for the unions. Charter schools for example, although funded with public money, are exempt from union contracts. Even in a close shop state that requires all public school teachers to be part of the union, charter school teachers are exempt from that requirement.
I have nothing against unions if they do what they should, which is provide workplace protections for their members. The teacher's unions should not be involved in the formulation of educaiton policy. Teachers yes, unions no. When the NEA undertakes suits like this, without the full support of their membership (and I know for a fact that they probably don't have the support of a significant minority of their membership and I would be willing to bet good money that the NEA lacks support of even a majority of their members on this suit), they just show their inability to evolve with the times.
The facts of the matter are that education has always been a state and local function. In the middle part of the 1950's was the first serious suggestion that the federal government should get involved in education. For the most part, the NEA wants the federal government to be nothing more than an endless bank account. The federal government may only get what it pays for by insisting on standards and qualifications before doling out funds. If those conditions require the improvement of schools and different reporting than what had been happening, such is the nature of federal legislation.
never forget, reporting on test scores and student achievement had been occuring before NCLB, there is no reason for the federal government to have to pay for new reporting when old reporting can just be re-tooled.
Finally, the fact that this lawsuit will occupy a court's time for too long offends me as well.
NEA--shut up and get out of the education policy business--your are not invited nor welcome.
CNN.com - First national suit over education law - Apr 20, 2005
Of course, lest anyone forget, this lawsuit is about one thing--power.
Sure the NEA talks a game that NCLB is about unfunded mandates and all that hullabaloo, but really the NEA is angered that the single most import piece of educational legislation was passed despite their negative endorsement and that such liberal icons as Ted Kennedy voted for it. For an organziation who claims to be in favor of improving education, their actions don't really support such a statement.
NEA's lawsuit further supports my contention that the biggest criminal in public education today are teacher's unions. Please note, I am not saying teachers, but rather their unions. Most teachers work very hard to educate our kids, but are hampered on two fronts--the administration and the union.
Any movement that provides choice for parents is bad for the unions. Charter schools for example, although funded with public money, are exempt from union contracts. Even in a close shop state that requires all public school teachers to be part of the union, charter school teachers are exempt from that requirement.
I have nothing against unions if they do what they should, which is provide workplace protections for their members. The teacher's unions should not be involved in the formulation of educaiton policy. Teachers yes, unions no. When the NEA undertakes suits like this, without the full support of their membership (and I know for a fact that they probably don't have the support of a significant minority of their membership and I would be willing to bet good money that the NEA lacks support of even a majority of their members on this suit), they just show their inability to evolve with the times.
The facts of the matter are that education has always been a state and local function. In the middle part of the 1950's was the first serious suggestion that the federal government should get involved in education. For the most part, the NEA wants the federal government to be nothing more than an endless bank account. The federal government may only get what it pays for by insisting on standards and qualifications before doling out funds. If those conditions require the improvement of schools and different reporting than what had been happening, such is the nature of federal legislation.
never forget, reporting on test scores and student achievement had been occuring before NCLB, there is no reason for the federal government to have to pay for new reporting when old reporting can just be re-tooled.
Finally, the fact that this lawsuit will occupy a court's time for too long offends me as well.
NEA--shut up and get out of the education policy business--your are not invited nor welcome.
CNN.com - First national suit over education law - Apr 20, 2005
Benedict XVI and His Impact on the MMVI Midterm Elections
Normally, the GOP doesn't make stupid statement like some of these in Stu Rothenberg's column in Roll Call (subscription required). Reacting to Pope Benedict's elevation:
First noting that German Catholics make up a large and important voting bloc in the upper midwest, it is hoped that the Pope will encourage these voters to swing Republican.
GOP insiders are hoping that Benedict XVI will agree to spend at least a few hours on a door-to-door voter registration effort in socially conservative areas, especially in German-American areas of Iowa’s open 1st district, which is expected to be in play next year.
While this seems like a good plan, that is all it is likely to remain--a plan. Allow me to play advisor to the Pope. Getting into the trenches by walking door to door demeans the status of the pope. His Holiness should not be involved in partisan politics. He can perhaps make a plea that people register to vote and go out to vote, but since the Holy Father is not democratically elected (the Cardinals, in case anyone wanted to know are appointed by the Pope), it seems improper to deliver such a message. Pope Benedict should not demean himself or the world-wide Catholic Church by getting involved in Congressional elections or even the Presidential election. It simply is not his place.
But lest you think that Democrats are above board on using Pope Benedict for political purposes
Democrats, however, may also have opportunities to benefit from the background, ethnicity and theological views of the new pope.
Party strategists immediately blasted Benedict XVI’s views on abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research and women in the priesthood. There is already talk of linking him to DeLay and the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Democrats argue that moderates, women and people who don’t like the idea that the pope was a member of the Hitler Youth, whether involuntarily or not, might be just a bit turned off by Ratzinger.
But moderates, women and the anti-Nazi's might not like any other pope who might have been selected. The Church's position on abortion, gay marriage and women in the priesthood extend much further back than even John Paul II. While stem-cell research is pretty new, given the definition of life promulgated by the Church, their position is pretty consistent. In short, those groups looking for a Pope who may say its okay for abortion or gay marriage are apparently looking for a Pope in an alternate universe. Of all the issues mentioned above, only women in the priesthood holds much hope for happening in the near future. (Keep in mind that near future in Catholic terms might be 100 years.)
Finally, this little paragraph just strikes me as funny:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton and former Congressman Father Robert Drinan also criticized Republicans for mixing religion and politics.
Preachers complaining about the mixture of politics and religion--yeah they are a good authority for that statement. (Kudos to Rothenberg for some sardonic humor).
Of course, Rothenberg whole column is a jab at those who would capitalize on Pope Benedict:
Not everything actually has an impact on the next election. And not every development needs be analyzed as if it were a Congressional election in Indiana. Politics is fine, but it is, after all, just politics.
Benedict XVI and His Impact on the MMVI Midterm Elections
First noting that German Catholics make up a large and important voting bloc in the upper midwest, it is hoped that the Pope will encourage these voters to swing Republican.
GOP insiders are hoping that Benedict XVI will agree to spend at least a few hours on a door-to-door voter registration effort in socially conservative areas, especially in German-American areas of Iowa’s open 1st district, which is expected to be in play next year.
While this seems like a good plan, that is all it is likely to remain--a plan. Allow me to play advisor to the Pope. Getting into the trenches by walking door to door demeans the status of the pope. His Holiness should not be involved in partisan politics. He can perhaps make a plea that people register to vote and go out to vote, but since the Holy Father is not democratically elected (the Cardinals, in case anyone wanted to know are appointed by the Pope), it seems improper to deliver such a message. Pope Benedict should not demean himself or the world-wide Catholic Church by getting involved in Congressional elections or even the Presidential election. It simply is not his place.
But lest you think that Democrats are above board on using Pope Benedict for political purposes
Democrats, however, may also have opportunities to benefit from the background, ethnicity and theological views of the new pope.
Party strategists immediately blasted Benedict XVI’s views on abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research and women in the priesthood. There is already talk of linking him to DeLay and the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Democrats argue that moderates, women and people who don’t like the idea that the pope was a member of the Hitler Youth, whether involuntarily or not, might be just a bit turned off by Ratzinger.
But moderates, women and the anti-Nazi's might not like any other pope who might have been selected. The Church's position on abortion, gay marriage and women in the priesthood extend much further back than even John Paul II. While stem-cell research is pretty new, given the definition of life promulgated by the Church, their position is pretty consistent. In short, those groups looking for a Pope who may say its okay for abortion or gay marriage are apparently looking for a Pope in an alternate universe. Of all the issues mentioned above, only women in the priesthood holds much hope for happening in the near future. (Keep in mind that near future in Catholic terms might be 100 years.)
Finally, this little paragraph just strikes me as funny:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton and former Congressman Father Robert Drinan also criticized Republicans for mixing religion and politics.
Preachers complaining about the mixture of politics and religion--yeah they are a good authority for that statement. (Kudos to Rothenberg for some sardonic humor).
Of course, Rothenberg whole column is a jab at those who would capitalize on Pope Benedict:
Not everything actually has an impact on the next election. And not every development needs be analyzed as if it were a Congressional election in Indiana. Politics is fine, but it is, after all, just politics.
Benedict XVI and His Impact on the MMVI Midterm Elections
Hearing Airs BCRA Criticism
Having spent most of my professional career in the campaign finance arena, these types of stories interest me a great deal. First, it appears obvious, as it should to any even moderate observer of politics, money will always find an outlet in campaigns. The fact that 527's came to prominence is not so surprising. Neither is it surprising that Congress will decide to take a look at the matter.
The problem facing Congress is two-fold. First, they must pass regulations aimed an governing the method in which they run for office. Because of the very nature of our government, Congress is the only body who can do this. Thus, not only does a conflict of interest exists, but the conflict is inherently structural.
Second, Congress must walk a fine line between laws designed to closely regulate campaign finance and crossing hte line into unconstitutional infringements on free speech.
As money becomes more prevalent and important in politics, perhaps only Congressman Doolittle has a solution that will solve everything--anything goes but you have to disclose everything. So the regulatory test of campaign finance will be the red-faced test or the smell test. Can a canddiate accept such funds and pass the smell test or embarassment test before the public.
Of course, such a regulatory formulation means that the public will have to become more sophisticated about campaign finance--a scenario unlikely to happen.
Hearing Airs BCRA Criticism
The problem facing Congress is two-fold. First, they must pass regulations aimed an governing the method in which they run for office. Because of the very nature of our government, Congress is the only body who can do this. Thus, not only does a conflict of interest exists, but the conflict is inherently structural.
Second, Congress must walk a fine line between laws designed to closely regulate campaign finance and crossing hte line into unconstitutional infringements on free speech.
As money becomes more prevalent and important in politics, perhaps only Congressman Doolittle has a solution that will solve everything--anything goes but you have to disclose everything. So the regulatory test of campaign finance will be the red-faced test or the smell test. Can a canddiate accept such funds and pass the smell test or embarassment test before the public.
Of course, such a regulatory formulation means that the public will have to become more sophisticated about campaign finance--a scenario unlikely to happen.
Hearing Airs BCRA Criticism
Clinton Case Mystery
A criminal prosecution in campaign finace violations is rare, but this one is such to cause a burr under the saddle of Democratic operatives who probably think the effort is intended to derail the Hilary Clinton Presidential Escapade.
Additionally, since the investigation by the FBI started in 2002, you can be sure that Democratic partisans will be crying foul, claiming that the only reason the investigation was started was to prevent Hilary's rise.
It will be interesting with the other shoe drops.
Clinton Case Mystery - April 21, 2005 - The New York Sun
Additionally, since the investigation by the FBI started in 2002, you can be sure that Democratic partisans will be crying foul, claiming that the only reason the investigation was started was to prevent Hilary's rise.
It will be interesting with the other shoe drops.
Clinton Case Mystery - April 21, 2005 - The New York Sun
O'Connor, Scalia and Bryer On Recent Criticism
Three Justices responded yesterday to criticisms leveled against the courts by conservative Republicans about a judiciary run amok. Interesting comments by all three, particularly O'Connor, who referred to the cyclical nature of such comments.
In nearly every era, criticisms of the judiciary usually involve the charge of an activist bench, saying that the judges have exceeded their authority or are legislating from the Bench. To be sure, one can always find, no matter your political persuasion, a decision or two or ten that supports your point of view.
Justice O'Connor, who has been on the Supreme Court for 24 years or so, understands the cyclical nature. In the mid-1990's, when the Supreme Court was striking down laws passed by Congress under the rubric of the Commerce Clause, surely remembers charges from the left that the Supreme Court was legislating from the bench.
Thus, one party's activism is another party's laudable actions.
On a side note, Justice Breyer notes "Our job ... is to decide the case in front of us."
Additional coverage here and here.
3 Justices Respond Personally to Criticism of U.S. Judiciary
In nearly every era, criticisms of the judiciary usually involve the charge of an activist bench, saying that the judges have exceeded their authority or are legislating from the Bench. To be sure, one can always find, no matter your political persuasion, a decision or two or ten that supports your point of view.
Justice O'Connor, who has been on the Supreme Court for 24 years or so, understands the cyclical nature. In the mid-1990's, when the Supreme Court was striking down laws passed by Congress under the rubric of the Commerce Clause, surely remembers charges from the left that the Supreme Court was legislating from the bench.
Thus, one party's activism is another party's laudable actions.
On a side note, Justice Breyer notes "Our job ... is to decide the case in front of us."
Additional coverage here and here.
3 Justices Respond Personally to Criticism of U.S. Judiciary
Roe, Partisanship and the Simplicity of David Brooks
In Today's New York Times, columnist David Brooks posits that the reason for the bitterness of judical nominee confirmation process is Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade. Not to stir up debate on abortion, but Brooks is smoking dope if he truly believes that one judicial opinoin has cause the rancor on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Brooks begins with a solid jumping off point, that a Supreme Court decision removed from democratic debate and decision the issue of abortion. By declaring it a right, limited and closely circumscribed as the right was, the Supreme Court ensured that the issue would be hotly debated for decades to come. But, in defense of the Court, they had to decide the case before them--that is their job.
Brooks begins with a solid jumping off point, that a Supreme Court decision removed from democratic debate and decision the issue of abortion. By declaring it a right, limited and closely circumscribed as the right was, the Supreme Court ensured that the issue would be hotly debated for decades to come. But, in defense of the Court, they had to decide the case before them--that is their job.
When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the
legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures,
we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views
of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative
compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as
legitimate.
But Brooks premise that the Roe decision has caused the rancor in the Senate Judiciary Committee is, put plainly, just silly.
Each nomination battle is more vicious than the last as the methodologies of
personal destruction are perfected. You get a tit-for-tat escalation as each
side points to the other's outrages to justify its own methods....At first the
Senate Judiciary Committee was chiefly infected by this way of doing business,
but now the entire body - in fact, the entire capital - has caught the abortion
fight fever.
A few causes of the partisanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee are as follows:
1. The Committee has no natural constituencies like say the Finance Committee or the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Thus, with no natural constituencies that can provide the all import campaign funds, the Committee does not attract Senators prone to compromise.
2. Because of the nature of the work of the Judiciary Committee, the committee is likely to attract those interested in the law, with all their prejudices and biases about how law should be written, interpreted and enforced.
3. The Committee itself is an arena with gladiators forged from the extremes of their party. If you don't believe, look up the press surrounding the elevation of moderate Arlen Spector to the Chairmanship.
4. The Committee is seen chiefly as a place to score political points with your base rather than with the broader electorate. Even when Justice Scalia, a noted and unabashed judicial conservative, we was confirmed 98-0 by the Senate.
5. C-SPAN and 24 hour news--public statements are now truly public and immediate--end of story.
6. The polarization of America into Red and Blue states means that most Senators come from states that are ovewhelmingly dominated by one political persuasion, a factor evident from the membership of the Judiciary Committee.
To say that the Roe decision is a root cause of the partisanship to fail to understand the fundamental nature of the Judiciary Committee within the larger Senate and the larger nature of our country.
Roe's Birth, and Death
Thursday, April 21, 2005
CA State Senate votes to ban hunting via Internet - sacbee.com
Um, OK. Apparently the CA State Senate has nothing better to legislate on. At least one Senator has his head on straight:
Of course I have a rather serious question. Who is going to be responsible for
policing this? Who will enforce this law?
On a constitutional level, there could be an argument for the interference of
interstate commerce by California, assuming of course this asinine bill
actually beomces law.
AP State Wire News - State Senate votes to ban hunting via Internet -
But Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-La Mesa, complained that the bill was "rapid reaction to something that's barely even occurred yet" and that lawmakers ought to pay more attention to other problems, like protecting children from child predators.
"We ought to take a serious look at what our priorities are," he said.
Of course I have a rather serious question. Who is going to be responsible for
policing this? Who will enforce this law?
On a constitutional level, there could be an argument for the interference of
interstate commerce by California, assuming of course this asinine bill
actually beomces law.
AP State Wire News - State Senate votes to ban hunting via Internet -
Blogger's Keeping Newspapers in Business?
I thought this was a neat piece about bloggers being such voracious readers that they may be keeping newspapers in business.
Masthead, The: Bloggers: The light at the end of the newspaper's tunnel
Masthead, The: Bloggers: The light at the end of the newspaper's tunnel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)