For those of you who don't know who Lynne Stewart is, you can read about her here (Orrin and others' take) or here (her own website, and the propaganda video we sat through when she came to visit today).
The skinny is she represented a convicted Islamic terrorist, intentionally broke some rules regarding her contact with him, got prosecuted and convicted for it (and, if justice prevails, will be going to jail soon) and is now being lionized by some on the left as a symbol of courage in a time of tyranny.
Here's how I would try to explain to my more liberal friends why I find Stewart (and her story) so unappealing:
Let's say I represented an anti-abortion activist who happened to primarily speak a foreign language.
And let's say he was convicted of plotting to blow up an abortion clinic and running a group that had successfully pulled off several of these mass murders.
And let's say that as a precaution against more bombings occurring at his direction the government was keeping my client in maximum-security lock up and not allowing him any contact with the outside world.
And let's say they made an exception for me as his lawyer, and told me I could bring support staff (translator, assistant) but our conversations with my client had to be limited to issues surrounding his legal defense and under no circumstances could I (or my staff) communicate on his behalf with his followers either personally or via the media.
And let's say I agreed to all of this in writing.
Now let's say I decide to patently disregard this agreement.
Let's say the "staff" I choose to bring for my client meetings are people who have ties to my client's demonstrably violent organization.
And let's say I allow my client to talk to these associates in their shared language (which I don't speak or understand) about issues wholly unrelated to his legal defense -- and I know they're talking, not translating, because the entire time they're doing it I'm making loud remarks about nothing, presumably to make it harder for the government to listen in to their conversations which it has informed me it might be doing.
And let's say a few months later another abortion clinic is bombed, killing or maiming dozens of doctors, nurses, staff, patients and bystanders...and my client's organization takes responsibility and demands his release.
And let's say even after this tragedy I continue to allow my client to meet with these conduits to his organization and speak with them as he chooses.
And let's say I issue a press release on my client's behalf wherein he urges followers to reject any peace with the "baby killers".
Again, let's say I did all this.
Would you praise me as a "zealous advocate"? Would you laud me as a "civil rights champion"?
Let's just say I wouldn't.
----
Bottom line, Lynne Stewart deserves to go to jail.
If she thought the restrictions the government was placing on her contact with her convicted-terrorist client were unconstitutional she could have challenged them. I might even have supported her in some of her objections...
Instead she made an agreement with the U.S. Government in obvious bad faith, broke it intentionally, and (at the very least) endangered innocent lives by doing so. (During the period when she was facilitating her client's communication with his organization it murdered 60 people and issued a demand for his release.)
I'll say it again, she deserves to go to jail.
Also, all the burritos were vegan.
Showing posts with label Debates and Speakers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debates and Speakers. Show all posts
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Friday, February 09, 2007
Great FedSoc Events Next Week
One on the death penalty, another on race - should be extremely interesting if you can make it! Note: I wasn't clear before - the two events advertized below are at Seattle University. Also, don't forget about the lawyer's chapter discussion this Wednesday on money in judicial elections with none other than Justice Sanders.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Bump: The Return of Professor Epstein - TOPIC UPDATE
*** Update! ***TODAY - February 6, 2007, 4:00 PM, Room 119
Room change - note it is now in 119, not 118.
Professor Epstein will be discussing his view on war powers and executive authority as it relates to the War on Terror. He has a very different take from our last speaker, but from a legally (as opposed to politically) conservative point of view. Here's a preview.
It also looks like we won't have the food, per the Academic Services rules about not befouling the classrooms outside of the lunch hour. However, several of us are planning to grab some food and perhaps a tasty mug or two at the College Inn Pub after the event, and the FedSoc will pick up the first couple of pitchers in lieu of food at the event. All are welcome!
**************
World renowned University of Chicago Professor Richard Epstein will be giving a talk next Tuesday, February 6th at 4:00 PM in room 118. The topic and possible debate adversary is TBD (check back here for updates), but we can tell you for sure that:
a) it will be from a very different point of view than the standard conservative/liberal camps,
b) it will be an extremely interesting talk, and
c)
See you there!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Money in Judicial Elections - Lawyer's Chapter Event
THE
of the FEDERALIST SOCIETY
cordially invites you to a panel on:
Money and Politics in
Judicial Elections
Moderated by:
The Honorable Richard Sanders – Justice, Washington State Supreme Court
Featuring a distinguished panel:
Charlie Wiggins – Partner, Wiggins & Masters, President of the Washington Chapter of the American Judicature Society, and former Court of Appeals, Division II Judge
William Maurer – Executive Director, Institute for Justice
Jenny Durkan – Office of Jenny A. Durkan, Co-Chair of Citizens to Uphold Constitution
The
$25.00 (includes hors d’oeuvres and hosted bar)
*CLE Credits Pending
RSVP
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Media Alert II (Morning Edition)
Tomorrow morning I'll be on the Sytman & Boze Show on AM 770 KTTH at 7:00 AM to discuss the Watada craziness. Give it a listen!
Media Alert
I'll be making my radio debut in a couple hours at 4:00 PM today on the Bryan Suits Show on KVI 570 (AM, of course) to discuss my impressions of the Ehren Watada silliness. Should be fun!
---
UPDATE: Here's the link for the live feed.
---
UPDATE: Here's the link for the live feed.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Comments on "Quiet Revolution"
I was going to write tonight about the absurd Alliance for Justice film "Quiet Revolution," and judging from the jump in hits today, it looks like some people were curious as to our rebuttals. But since it took me 4 1/2 hours to get my wife and myself home tonight thanks to the weather, and I'm now enjoying a stiff drink to recover from yelling at non-South Dakota trained snow drivers, I think it best that I leave it for tomorrow.
For now, I'll merely sum it up this way:
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
One of the most over the top, tabloid-esque, dishonest, and unintentionally funny things I've seen in a really long time. Watch it here and see for yourself. Details to follow.
For now, I'll merely sum it up this way:
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
One of the most over the top, tabloid-esque, dishonest, and unintentionally funny things I've seen in a really long time. Watch it here and see for yourself. Details to follow.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Right wing war on the Constitution?
The ACS is sponsoring an event next Monday which promises to be both wildly amusing and mildly instructive -- a screening of a film called the "Quiet Revolution" followed by a panel discussion featuring Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice) and William Talbott (Philosophy Prof, at the UW).
The blurb for the event is beyond risible, accusing the "far right" of waging a sustained war on "the Constitution as we know it." Apparently ultra-conservative politicians, professors (all three of them) and judges are on the prowl, attempting to "shred the fabric of popular laws" protecting workers and expanding exective power while trampling on civil liberties. And Nan Aaron is going to instruct the UW student body on how to identify and slay the beast: "Learn more about this movement - its goals, its supporters, its tactics - and what you can do to take action."
I would n't miss this event for the world. I yearn to learn more about the "Constitution as we know it," and how it differs from the regular old Constitution; I'm especially keen on hearing more about the identifying characteristics and habits of this sinister sodality of "far right" vivisectionists, and the tactics for its extermination ...
Hope to see you'll there : Mon, Nov 27, Room 138 at 12:30.
The blurb for the event is beyond risible, accusing the "far right" of waging a sustained war on "the Constitution as we know it." Apparently ultra-conservative politicians, professors (all three of them) and judges are on the prowl, attempting to "shred the fabric of popular laws" protecting workers and expanding exective power while trampling on civil liberties. And Nan Aaron is going to instruct the UW student body on how to identify and slay the beast: "Learn more about this movement - its goals, its supporters, its tactics - and what you can do to take action."
I would n't miss this event for the world. I yearn to learn more about the "Constitution as we know it," and how it differs from the regular old Constitution; I'm especially keen on hearing more about the identifying characteristics and habits of this sinister sodality of "far right" vivisectionists, and the tactics for its extermination ...
Hope to see you'll there : Mon, Nov 27, Room 138 at 12:30.
It is emphatically the province of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be?
Posner disagrees. The Chicago chapter of the Fed Soc and ACS sponsored a discussion on what Posner calls "pragmatic adjudication" -- here's an interesting summary (which also has a link to a podcast of the event).
Monday, November 06, 2006
Executive War Powers - What Did You Think?
Was Professor Turner correct about the intended scope of the Executive near-monopoly on war powers? Even if he was, should a "living constitution" limit those powers now? Can we trust Congress to act decisively or with necessary secrecy in the arena of foreign affairs? Tell us what you thought.
For my part, I want to note that anyone who had Professor Allen for 1L Constitutional Law did, in fact, discuss the power of the Constitution's command that "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and that this command came with extraordinary and nearly exclusive power over international affairs. I think it's fortunate at this difficult time in our history that President Bush has fought to maintain and reclaim this Executive duty.
For my part, I want to note that anyone who had Professor Allen for 1L Constitutional Law did, in fact, discuss the power of the Constitution's command that "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and that this command came with extraordinary and nearly exclusive power over international affairs. I think it's fortunate at this difficult time in our history that President Bush has fought to maintain and reclaim this Executive duty.
War Powers and the Constitution Event - TODAY
Think this administration has gone too far in asserting the power of the executive? Not far enough? Join us today at 12:30 in room 117 for a talk on "The Separation of Constitutional Powers over War, Diplomacy and Intelligence: What would the Founding Fathers have thought" by Professor Bob Turner, founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia Law School.
Lunch will be served.
Lunch will be served.
Justice O'Connor's Disappointing Speech
Saturday night I was lucky enough to have been selected in the lottery to hear retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor speak to honor the Gates Public Service Law Scholarship. Sadly, while her speech was quite good in a technical sense (entertaining, geared towards her audience, not interminable), the content was surprising and disappointing.
Because the entire point of the event was to push a public service scholarship program, she tailored her remarks to that subject. That in and of itself is commendable - all too often a famous speaker will simply give their stock speeches and not take the time to consider the people who have come to hear them.
But Justice O'Connor spoke of encouraging public service as a civic virtue, and that we should be doing everything we could to get more people to work for the government. She lamented that so many law students are "forced" to go work for firms because of their overwhelming student loans. She cited numbers that showed the average law student graduates with a loan burden of around $15,000, and then said she thought that was low because her law clerks were looking at closer to $50,000. She even suggested that it was too bad the non-profits were stealing the talent away from the public sector.
I was frankly shocked. I kept thinking, "How is this a Ronald Reagan appointee?"
With due respect to the Justice, it's just wrong that government jobs are the only - or even the best - way to serve the public. Frankly, more people in government is the LAST thing we need! Private attorneys do mountains of charitable work, mostly in the form of providing pro bono legal services. As Bill Gates, Sr. himself proves, one of the ways to have the biggest impacts is to make a boatload of money in the private sector first, and then get all charitable with your time and money. And even the stingy and selfish in the private sector do more to help the public than they were given credit for, just for the fact that they create jobs, help our vibrant economy grow, and aren't relying on the taxpayers for their salaries and health benefits.
With the possible exception of public defender's offices, I find it hard to believe that any government legal positions are really that hard up for applicants. The pay may not be as good, but the benefits and job security are unmatched, and most public sector attorneys work much saner hours than those who slave away at firms.
And as tough as they are, law school loans - especially at our low cost school - are just not an unreasonable burden considering the return-on-investment a J.D. provides. You just don't see a lot of attorneys living in vans down by the river. Even a career public defender can (with some smart investing), live and retire quite comfortably.
The one government/public service sector that was notably absent from her comments was military service. It's also notably absent from the Gates Public Service Scholarship winners, and I have a feeling it will be overlooked in the future, too. Why is a commitment to public service shown more in liberal activist groups like "California Peace Action," abortion advocacy organizations, or the ACLU than after a tour in Afghanistan? Which person has actually had a more significant impact on world peace and justice, humanitarian efforts, and introducing democracy - and at greater personal risk than suffering an extra few years of loan repayments? I have a feeling it simply never crossed the committee's mind. And that's sad.
The man giving the intro spoke strongly about the Justice's commitment to "justice," citing her protection of affirmative action, expansion of substantive due process, and making "principled" decisions as opposed to the ones she was "supposed to make." But whatever the virtues of those policy goals may have been, I wished she'd pursued them in a legislature where they belong. Our ideas of what make a principled jurist are clearly different.
I've always felt in reading Justice O'Connor's opinions that, while I agree with her votes more often than not, she's always been a policy maker on the bench. Saturday's speech drove that point home perfectly. I'm glad she was able to make the time to come speak, and that the event planners made so much room for law students - it's always fascinating to hear what such a powerful person has to say (not to mention the phenomenal food!). But I'm equally glad Justice Alito has replaced her on the High Court.
Because the entire point of the event was to push a public service scholarship program, she tailored her remarks to that subject. That in and of itself is commendable - all too often a famous speaker will simply give their stock speeches and not take the time to consider the people who have come to hear them.
But Justice O'Connor spoke of encouraging public service as a civic virtue, and that we should be doing everything we could to get more people to work for the government. She lamented that so many law students are "forced" to go work for firms because of their overwhelming student loans. She cited numbers that showed the average law student graduates with a loan burden of around $15,000, and then said she thought that was low because her law clerks were looking at closer to $50,000. She even suggested that it was too bad the non-profits were stealing the talent away from the public sector.
I was frankly shocked. I kept thinking, "How is this a Ronald Reagan appointee?"
With due respect to the Justice, it's just wrong that government jobs are the only - or even the best - way to serve the public. Frankly, more people in government is the LAST thing we need! Private attorneys do mountains of charitable work, mostly in the form of providing pro bono legal services. As Bill Gates, Sr. himself proves, one of the ways to have the biggest impacts is to make a boatload of money in the private sector first, and then get all charitable with your time and money. And even the stingy and selfish in the private sector do more to help the public than they were given credit for, just for the fact that they create jobs, help our vibrant economy grow, and aren't relying on the taxpayers for their salaries and health benefits.
With the possible exception of public defender's offices, I find it hard to believe that any government legal positions are really that hard up for applicants. The pay may not be as good, but the benefits and job security are unmatched, and most public sector attorneys work much saner hours than those who slave away at firms.
And as tough as they are, law school loans - especially at our low cost school - are just not an unreasonable burden considering the return-on-investment a J.D. provides. You just don't see a lot of attorneys living in vans down by the river. Even a career public defender can (with some smart investing), live and retire quite comfortably.
The one government/public service sector that was notably absent from her comments was military service. It's also notably absent from the Gates Public Service Scholarship winners, and I have a feeling it will be overlooked in the future, too. Why is a commitment to public service shown more in liberal activist groups like "California Peace Action," abortion advocacy organizations, or the ACLU than after a tour in Afghanistan? Which person has actually had a more significant impact on world peace and justice, humanitarian efforts, and introducing democracy - and at greater personal risk than suffering an extra few years of loan repayments? I have a feeling it simply never crossed the committee's mind. And that's sad.
The man giving the intro spoke strongly about the Justice's commitment to "justice," citing her protection of affirmative action, expansion of substantive due process, and making "principled" decisions as opposed to the ones she was "supposed to make." But whatever the virtues of those policy goals may have been, I wished she'd pursued them in a legislature where they belong. Our ideas of what make a principled jurist are clearly different.
I've always felt in reading Justice O'Connor's opinions that, while I agree with her votes more often than not, she's always been a policy maker on the bench. Saturday's speech drove that point home perfectly. I'm glad she was able to make the time to come speak, and that the event planners made so much room for law students - it's always fascinating to hear what such a powerful person has to say (not to mention the phenomenal food!). But I'm equally glad Justice Alito has replaced her on the High Court.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
I-933 Debate - What Did You Think?
I'd like to say thank you to Steve Hammond and Tim Trohimovich for taking the time to help us wrestle with I-933 today, to Greenlaw for laying so much of the groundwork, and to all the people that came to the event. It was fantastic!
Once again, the complete text of the initiative is here.
Please let us know what you thought, and what you'd like to see to make our events better in the future. Thanks again!
Once again, the complete text of the initiative is here.
Please let us know what you thought, and what you'd like to see to make our events better in the future. Thanks again!
Monday, October 23, 2006
BUMP: I-933 Debate this Tuesday
Don't forget...
We're co-hosting an event with Greenlaw this Tuesday (10/24) on the upcoming I-933 initiative. Find out - is this initiative absolutely essential for the protection of property rights or an utterly intolerable restraint on planning and land use?
The initiative, if passed, promises to have some pretty dramatic consequences for property rights and the ability of municipalities to plan their growth effectively. You can read the text of the initiative here.
We hope to see you there!
We're co-hosting an event with Greenlaw this Tuesday (10/24) on the upcoming I-933 initiative. Find out - is this initiative absolutely essential for the protection of property rights or an utterly intolerable restraint on planning and land use?The initiative, if passed, promises to have some pretty dramatic consequences for property rights and the ability of municipalities to plan their growth effectively. You can read the text of the initiative here.
We hope to see you there!
Thursday, October 19, 2006
The Stranger Praises the Federalist Society
Whoduthunk? The hippy tabloid sent a rep to cover last week's Lawyer's Chapter DOMA event, which was indeed phenomenal. I think they came to some different conclusions than I did, but it was nice to see praise of grown-up, nuanced debate - no matter what side of the issue one happens to fall.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
NSA Wiretap - What Did You Think?
Thank you, everyone, for coming out to our NSA Wiretap discussion, and making it a huge success. It's unfortunate that we only had a short time to really explore these issues. We would love to know what you think - of the topic, of the speaker, of the venue, of the pizza... Feel free to comment below!
We've discussed this topic before - here are some of our past blogs on the topic. One goes deeper into the 4th Amendment implications, which is very interesting and worthy of its own.
If this talk interested you, please note that we have a tenatively scheduled event later this quarter on the Constitutional framework which makes legal (or not) our detention of various detainees at Gitmo.
We hope you enjoyed our event, and hope to see you at more! For more information on the Federalist Society or our events, please subscribe to our mailing list.
We've discussed this topic before - here are some of our past blogs on the topic. One goes deeper into the 4th Amendment implications, which is very interesting and worthy of its own.
If this talk interested you, please note that we have a tenatively scheduled event later this quarter on the Constitutional framework which makes legal (or not) our detention of various detainees at Gitmo.
We hope you enjoyed our event, and hope to see you at more! For more information on the Federalist Society or our events, please subscribe to our mailing list.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Law and Economics Lecture This Friday
Professor Steven Shavell of Harvard's Center for Law, Economics, and Business will be in town this Friday, October 6 at 3:30 in room 119. He will be giving a talk on "When is it socially advantageous to change legal rules in the light of altered circumstances? - Optimal Legal Change, Past Behavior, and Grandfathering." The public is welcome. For more information on L&E, click here.
This is not a FedSoc sponsored event, but I'm passing it on because I think it will be of particular interest to our members, especially those who aren't able to take the class this year. It's a true shame that the sponsor, our own Law and Econ Professor Steve Calandrillo, is on sabbatical this year. I hope he'll be here next year for his Law and Economics class - not only is he one of the absolute best professors at this school, but the material is fascinating. And Prof. Shavell wrote our textbook, so I expect this event will be very interesting and informative.
L&E isn't a conservative/libertarian doctrine per se, although it is very attractive to many FedSoc members in that it forces people to look quantitatively to actual impact of policy and the law, as opposed to just feeling like something is, like, justice, man. I had to even bring a calculator. But I highly recommend the class if it's available next year. It will challenge a lot of assumptions, and you will look at law and policy differently after the experience, and there's nothing else like it in law school.
This is not a FedSoc sponsored event, but I'm passing it on because I think it will be of particular interest to our members, especially those who aren't able to take the class this year. It's a true shame that the sponsor, our own Law and Econ Professor Steve Calandrillo, is on sabbatical this year. I hope he'll be here next year for his Law and Economics class - not only is he one of the absolute best professors at this school, but the material is fascinating. And Prof. Shavell wrote our textbook, so I expect this event will be very interesting and informative.
L&E isn't a conservative/libertarian doctrine per se, although it is very attractive to many FedSoc members in that it forces people to look quantitatively to actual impact of policy and the law, as opposed to just feeling like something is, like, justice, man. I had to even bring a calculator. But I highly recommend the class if it's available next year. It will challenge a lot of assumptions, and you will look at law and policy differently after the experience, and there's nothing else like it in law school.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
2nd Amendment Debate TODAY
Don't forget to join us tonight at 5:30 in room 138 for a debate on how much regulation is Constitutionally permissible.
Free drinks will be provided! It's right after the TGIT - plenty of reason to stick around.
Arguing that gun regulation and licensing should be treated much like we do with cars is our own Constitutional Law Professor Stewart Jay. And we are proud to welcome Mr. Don Kates, a pro-2nd Amendment criminologist, retired Constitutional and Criminal Law professor, civil right's lawyer, and proud member of the ACLU. It should be a very interesting and unique 2nd Amendment discussion, with a lot of nuance that is usually missing from this important issue.
Free drinks will be provided! It's right after the TGIT - plenty of reason to stick around.
Arguing that gun regulation and licensing should be treated much like we do with cars is our own Constitutional Law Professor Stewart Jay. And we are proud to welcome Mr. Don Kates, a pro-2nd Amendment criminologist, retired Constitutional and Criminal Law professor, civil right's lawyer, and proud member of the ACLU. It should be a very interesting and unique 2nd Amendment discussion, with a lot of nuance that is usually missing from this important issue.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Gun Rights Debate This Thursday
Now that you've sent a few rounds down range, join us this Thursday at 5:30 in room 138 for a debate on how much regulation is Constitutionally permissible.
Arguing that gun regulation and licensing should be treated much like we do with cars is our own Constitutional Law Professor Stewart Jay. And we are proud to welcome Mr. Don Kates, a pro-2nd Amendment criminologist, retired Constitutional and Criminal Law professor, civil right's lawyer, and proud member of the ACLU. It should be a very interesting and unique 2nd Amendment discussion, with a lot of nuance that is usually missing from this important issue.
Arguing that gun regulation and licensing should be treated much like we do with cars is our own Constitutional Law Professor Stewart Jay. And we are proud to welcome Mr. Don Kates, a pro-2nd Amendment criminologist, retired Constitutional and Criminal Law professor, civil right's lawyer, and proud member of the ACLU. It should be a very interesting and unique 2nd Amendment discussion, with a lot of nuance that is usually missing from this important issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
