The Death of Intellectual Honesty

Let's take a look at this résumé:

Princeton, summa cum laude
Yale Law School, editor of Yale Law Journal
Prosecutor in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) for five years
Federal Judge for 17 years, 10 of which were on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (nominated by both parties for the positions)
Unanimous "Well Qualified" assessment by the American Bar Association (highest rating)

Sounds like a pretty solid candidate for the Supreme Court. Actually, it sounds like a pretty spectacular candidate. So who's this dude?

Wait a second, she's a woman? Hold the phone buddy...uh huh. A Latina woman? Why on God's Green Earth® is the President playing identity politics?! Clearly this is some sort of Affirmative Action pick, done to fill some undefined imaginary quota for Supreme Court Justices. Why can't the President simply pick the best and most well-qualified candidate for the job?


That's a pretty good summary of the Republican opposition to Judge Sotomayor. Because she is a Latina, this is a sign that someone who was clearly more well-qualified (read: white, male) was passed over in order for the President to score political points with liberal special interests groups. Every spectacular achievement apparently is worth less than nothing if it comes from a minority--every highlight on that résumé was clearly made due to special preference given to minorities, even those that are the result of grades! I mean, they just hand out summa cum laudes like car wash fliers at a school like Princeton, right?

I'm not one to scream racism any chance I get, but every time I heard a Republican make an argument that we don't know enough about her record (besides you know, the 17 years worth of opinions) or that they're not certain Judge Sotomayor is qualified enough for the appointment, I thought I'd just explode. Even when faced with blindingly obvious facts that can't be twisted another way, they continue to maintain the same bullshit, all in the name of politics.

You see, the problem is that we have lost the ability to remain objective about the law, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. Hearings are a charade and two shams, with bogus questions aimed at one thing: will you agree with me on this particular pet issue? And for several Senators, it's only one issue (the one that rhymes with shma-shmortion), and if you don't agree, then you CLEARLY are not qualified.

And this is why I say that Intellectual Honesty has died. There once was a time when candidates with ideologies that were polar opposites would be approved by margins of 90 votes or more. Consider that Scalia was approved with a 98-0 vote by a Democratic Congress, and that Ginsburg came onto the Court after a 96-3 vote in her favor! Alas, those days are long gone.


To be fair, I can't blame this all on Republicans. Consider the nomination of John Roberts. While Roberts didn't have the same amount of experience as a Judge, he was probably the most seasoned litigator to appear before the Supreme Court, winning several high-profile cases. His writings also displayed a great intelligence and solid legal foundation. It's just that these were often based on fairly conservative principles, many of which I find to be anathema. That's why I have to admit that if I had been given the chance, I still would have approved Robert's nomination, despite the difference in personal beliefs--there was nothing in his record that showed that he was unqualified in any way. Even so, though Roberts was approved by a large majority, it was not a near-unanimous vote like his predecessors. And you could find that Barack Obama among the "nay" votes on that one. So it's no surprise that you found that today was the first time many Republican Senators would vote "no" on a judicial nominee. But that doesn't make it any less sad.

* * * * *

But Nic, what about some of the "legitimate" arguments against her? Wise Latina woman? Ricci?! Empathy?!!?

Let's take these questions one by one. The big talking point on the right was how the pick that was made solely to satisfy the liberal craving for "diversity" was herself a racist. This was due to the famous "wise latina woman" statement. Surely this is a shining example of racism--she's literally saying that one race is better than the other!

Of course, it might help to examine the quote in context--you know, that tends to be kind of important in these situations. If you look at the surrounding paragraphs, you'll notice that she's talking specifically about discrimination cases. She brought up the fact that Justices Holmes and Cardozo, though brilliant legal minds, never once found for the woman in a discrimination case during their many decades on the bench. It would seem quite odd that there was never an instance of discrimination, especially in the early part of the century. The idea that Sotomayor was expressing was that due to their societal positions, Holmes and Cardozo just could not understand the indignities of discrimination in its many forms--hence the concept of the wise Latina woman and the richness of her experiences. As a likely target, the Latina woman would know firsthand the pain of discrimination, and would understand better the victim's complaint--which is simply true for many things in life. This was the original (and best) explanation for the statement, but of course, politics rule the day so we must maneuver our way into somehow creating a misstatement. Besides, isn't a "wise" anything better than a plain whatever?



Ricci though proves once and for all that for all the calls about limiting Judicial Activism, the principle itself doesn't count for shit. No, it's about time Republicans own up to the fact that it's merely a code word for "this dude wants to give gays some rights". That's because Ricci was all about applying old precedent, and the Supreme Court reversal was all about creating a new standard. Confused? Well, let's explain the case this way: New Haven was in a position that can be described as "totally fucked", since no matter which way they went they were going to get sued--throw out the results, you get a suit from the white firefighters who passed, but if you keep the results, the minority fighters will sue. How can both sides have a case? Well, that's because of a standard called "disparate impact"--a test can be inferred to be racist if the results of the test bear this out in some kind of statistically significant way. This came about during the 70's, as many employers looked to sly means of maintaining a segregated workforce while avoiding a formal declaration, by requiring things like a college degree regardless of the position--something that was unavailable to the vast majority of minorities at the time. So New Haven decided to be proactive and avoid the lawsuit from the black firefighters, and as a result walked right into this lawsuit. The Supreme Court reversed the 2nd Circuit decision*, but what was amazing about their opinion was the lack of resolution. That's because Kennedy's opinion said that while New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the results, that even if they kept the results, the black firefighters would still be able to sue! Ricci is proof of the maxim "bad facts make bad law".**

As for empathy, well, let's just say there's more room for personal interpretation than the hearings the past two weeks would lead you to believe. In cases that rely on things as seemingly simple as a calendar date, there is STILL room for maneuverability. So that's why it makes sense for Obama to look for that quality, among others.

But you know what, screw the facts, let's just play hungry hungry hippos, I mean, politics. We'll just call Judge Sotomayor a racist, even though there's volumes of evidence that prove just the opposite. We'll try to make an issue that Sotomayor has been overruled on multiple occasions, even though by doing so you completely misrepresent the process of Supreme Court review and its meaning. We will lament the fact that by making this token pick in the name of diversity we are clearly leaving out some unknown "superior" candidate, i.e. white and male. We will bitch about the pronunciation of her name. We will continue to spew bullshit.

Let it be said that I am in no way a total supporter of Sotomayor--she's a former hardass prosecutor, and I tend to be very wary of those types, since they tend to exhibit, ahem, less empathy. But just because I'm sure I'll disagree many times with Sotomayor, that doesn't mean she is unqualified for the job. And even though we can now see that Intellectual Honesty has abandoned us, I will still cling to that principle, even if I have to do it alone.



*It's amazing how an unsigned, unanimous opinion gets singularly attributed to Sotomayor. Just think about that.

**I have my own issues with the facts of the Ricci case. Much has been made about the fact that Ricci spent several thousand dollars of his own money on private classes so that his dyslexia would not be a problem for the test. This raises two issues: 1) Why was a promotion to be an officer in the Fire Department dependent on a test that would be affected by dyslexia? One would think that this hindrance would be irrelevant to the tasks associated with the job, yet it was a factor on his performance on the test (he had scored worse before). Yet if it IS a factor, why should this one-time performance be the standard--do we need to fear the instance where the dyslexia plays a factor? And 2) The paying for expensive classes is an example that is played out in the High School level with the SAT, and is evidence of the Cultural Bias of the standardized test--the more well-off students (the majority of them white) pay thousands for classes that help them in essence game the system, while the poorer ones (of which many minorities fall into) get left behind. This is the exact same thing, yet I haven't heard a pundit mention this.

Courting Controversy--Law Professors and Gay Rights

Recently my current school found itself in the middle of a controversy over one of its faculty appointments. See, NYU Law decided to hire Professor Li-ann Thio from Singapore as a visiting professor this fall. Initially, this appointment proved no problem, as most of us are not up-to-date on the collected writings of legal scholars in Singapore. However, as you may be expecting (considering I would not be writing about this otherwise), a video surfaced that would outrage many within the NYU community.

You see, Dr. Thio is also a member of Parliament in her home country, where they were recently considering whether to repeal the criminalization of homosexual sex. Dr. Thio gave a speech arguing against the repeal, raising more than eyebrows among concerned members of the NYU community. These are the sorts of people who would not be swayed by such rhetorical flourishes like "a human wrong cannot be a human right" and that "diversity is not a license to perversity".


You can imagine the reaction. First a letter informing the students of the existence of the video, and soon followed by petitions and calls for her ouster. In the face of this stiff opposition, NYU made the tough decision to stand behind the principle of academic freedom and not remove the appointment. They stated that they were unaware of the speech and that such views had not appeared in her legal writings. They pointed out that while regrettable, this did not affect her ability to teach or her scholarship, the basis on which the appointment was made.

This led to an uncomfortable few weeks as the situation remained at an impasse. Dr. Thio made a sharp rebuttal to her critics, which spurred further protests. And when it came time for students to select classes, a grand total of five students decided to sign up for her seminar on, I kid you not, "Human Rights in Asia." Today though, we have a resolution to this ordeal: Dr. Thio has canceled her visit to NYU for the fall semester.

I have mixed feelings about the way the situation was handled, though I'm more disappointed than anything. Let me explain. On the one hand, I am firmly against her position on homosexual relations, but then I have to square this with the fact that I am coming from a perspective and experience that's much different from that of Singapore. Gay rights have advanced greatly here, but there is a greater resistance elsewhere, so it should come as no surprise that there are more people that hold these views. The state of the discussion in Singapore is far behind that in the US, considering the nature of the proceedings (the mere decriminalization of homosexual relations). It should also be considered that Dr. Thio's role as an MP is also different from that as a scholar, and one should not have bearing on the other in this case.


However, I am proud of NYU for sticking out in support of academic freedom. They realize that in our scholarly pursuits we must look to arguments from all sides, and not restrict the communication of ideas, even if we do not personally agree with them. That's why it disappoints me when strong-arm tactics are used by others to totally suppress others' views. By merely shouting down the other side instead of engaging, the only thing that is accomplished is spreading bitterness among both sides. I also find that it shows a lack of faith in one's own arguments if you have to resort to such drastic means. And the hypocrisy is stunning: how many times have the left denigrated conservatives for side-stepping debate and resorting to name-calling? We can't be selective in this principle--it is the definition of liberalism.

The students though should be applauded for partially making the right move. The lack of interest in the class is the most effective action that can be taken, and may be the most damning of Prof. Thio's views. This "voting with your feet" should be commended, and should be the route that is pursued in the future.

In the end, NYU loses out on an attempt to provide at least a little balance to their pretty strict liberal professorship. Admittedly, it would be somewhat interesting to hear a seminar on human rights who isn't a particular fan of the subject. But hey, I'd rather take Environmental Law with the Dean.

The Real Reason I Want To Be A Lawyer: Part II

Is so I could judicially beat the crap out of people like this guy.



In my contracts class, we discussed the case of Leonard v. Pepsico. Some asshat saw the above ad and decided "I'm going to get myself a Harrier Jet". Of course, this would have been my same attitude when I saw this ad at age 10. But it took some 21 year-old douchebag to try and actually claim the prize seen in the ad.

He of course failed, for a variety of reasons (one, an ad is not an offer and two, it was so ridiculous that no reasonable person could construe it as an offer, for example), but let us not forget Leonard. He saw that there were 7 million Pepsi points needed, and deciding he didn't want to drink the necessary Pepsi products to gain the points, but that he would buy the points as Pepsi allowed, at 10 cents a point. We must also remember the 5 other investors that he got to tag along to get him to raise the $700k necessary to complete the transaction (once he had the minimum 15 Pepsi points, so he did have to endure the Unclean Cola to some extent). Those fuckheads need to be remembered as well.

The only thing I could think when reading the hilarious decision (complete with dissection of the nature of humor (no, seriously)) was 1) I really need to smack this kid and 2) I hope he gets tooth decay. And I think if I was a judge, I'd make this happen.

See, law school isn't totally lame.

Everything's Coming Up Milhouse!

As we eagerly anticipate Joe Reefer's delicious and scandalous contribution for the month, allow me to indulge in a bit of personal news. You may recall my continual detailing of my attempts to avoid becoming a total loser, which somehow involved the use of Logic Games. My ability to do things such as determining the correct order of scheduling 7 flights while paying attention to arbitrary rules was going to be my ticket out of this dump (for the record, I made the sentence structure of that previous statement as unclear as possible to give one an idea about the type of language they actually use on the test). Ah, yes, the glorious LSAT. Today, I found out if my efforts were in vain.

They were not. To say the least.


I remember being very uncertain about my potential score while I was taking the test, as my mind was continually plagued with self-doubt. "Oh god, no, not another guess! Holy crap, I'm not going to have time to finish this game! What the hell is Germanium?!?" In fact, there were several moments where I was ready to throw in the towel and tell the kindly old folks at the LSAC to please burn my test and salt the earth where they buried it so nothing would ever grow there again. But I didn't. And as the day, went along, I gradually thought better of my efforts, and eventually decided that I should say "what the hell" and hope for the best. What convinced me to adopt this strategy? Well, this was the reason. That's right, college fuckin' football convinced me otherwise. If LSU could pull off such an incredibly lucky run to the championship game, wasn't this a good omen for me?

Apparently it was. Because when I opened the email that would tell me of my fate (i.e., my score), I was absolutely stunned. I nearly had the happiest heart attack on record. Actually, I've had a lot of those near-heart attacks this year...you would think this would bother me. Anyways, I was convinced that I had been a victim of a cruel joke, but hey, the story checked out. I did actually make that score. Redemption, thy name is Nic Ouzo!

All in all, it made my top 3 moments of the year. What were the other two? Well, they're too retarded to mention here in this space. And yes, I say this with the full realization that we have multiple posts that utilize the "bongtarded" tag. Your arguments do not persuade me! Why do you continue looking at me? I don't have to answer to you!



Now it's time go out and celebrate, WDR-style. It's the only way to celebrate the 174-99 combo.

Fun With The LSAT!

Testmakers have a sense of humour too!


In an attempt to improve my living conditions, this humble author is taking a test this weekend that will be used to determine whether or not he'd make a decent lawyer. Hopefully this will lead to the acquisition of a job in the future, but at the very least it should help improve the living situation somewhat. Romantic improvements are totally absent from the proceedings, and will be for the foreseeable future.

What kind of test is this? Well, it's a test that looks at how well you read, how well you can parse arguments, and how well you can figure out the ordering of different computer programs that you update in some specific order, with different priority levels that are assigned without consideration for the order in which you update said programs*, and hope your brain doesn't explode in the process. That last section is appropriately titled "Logic Games", because that's exactly the kind of thing that any normal young kid would sign up for in an instant, and is also of course perfectly relevant because of the little-known fact that lawyers regularly engage in a 90-minute session of Logic Games every Thursday Afternoon, before the Hobo Riots occur that night. I would offer you the location of the store where you could purchase the home version of these games, but that's only disclosed to those who have earned a fancy law-talking degree.


The test will be the reason that you shouldn't be seeing any post from me on either Thursday or Friday, since I will be continuing my preparation for a test in which there's really no good preparation (stupid, non-knowledge-based test!). But I thought I'd let you in on the fun of the preparation by reprinting an anecdote that serves as a helpful hint in analyzing different arguments.

It is reprinted below:

What is an assumption? An assumption, both in life and on the LSAT, is a leap of logic that we make to get from one piece of information to another. For instance, if you see a friend of yours wearing a yellow shirt and you conclude that your friend likes yellow, you would be making the following assumptions:

1. Your friend is not color-blind and does not actually think he's wearing purple.
2. Your friend was not threatened by a madman who said that, unless he wore a yellow shirt for one month straight, his house would be burned to the ground.
3. Your friend was not down to his last clean shirt, the one that he wears when everything else needs to be washed.
4. Your friend...

I'm especially looking forward to using the "Yellow Shirt Madman" defense in a trial in my future. That's going to be a helluva case.



*actual problem

Explaining Our Vendettas: Jed The Fish

Some of you may have noticed a strange item in the layout of our humble blog, a unique feature that you won't see anywhere else (therefore, making it by definition "unique". I am the king of redundancy.). That feature is the list of "Vendettas". Thus begins our series on explaining why exactly we have such righteous fury against these targets.


As a former radio station employee, I am keenly familiar with the various inner-workings of the radio industry. I also am highly sensitive to crappy crappy crappy DJs. Hence, the appearance of many DJs on the Vendettas list. However, none inspire my indignation quite as much as one fellow from KROQ.


Why the hell would I care about a KROQ DJ? Well, since they are the most famous rock radio station in the US, they have a lot of their DJs host syndicated programs that get played around the country, shows like Loveline. The reason for syndication is usually one of two reasons--either the show is really popular (think Howard Stern or Loveline), or stations just want to fill up time slots, usually on the weekend. In exchange for playing these time-filler slots, radio stations get free CDs in return filled with various crap that we can use to do our own production. It's not a bad deal.


However, some of these shows are unbearably awful. One such show that fits under this category is "Out Of Order with Jed the Fish", a countdown show that uses it's inability to count correctly as a gimmick. That is actually the smartest thing about the show, if you can believe it. The host is a smug, retarded jackass that goes by the spectacularly mediocre handle of Jed the Fish, whose idea of hosting a show means him making a terrible pun or speaking in a weird voice for 15 seconds before introducing a song. That is, if he's speaking at all. Often he'll just introduce an interview segment, splice in someone else's interview, and call it a day. This all wouldn't be so bad, but his nationwide show nets him a deal that makes him a millionaire, all for a few minutes worth of quarter-assed work--producers do the rest.

And for this, he earns a deserved spot on the Vendettas list.

The Real Reason I Wanted To Become A Lawyer

Sure, I'm a big fan of things like social justice and looking out for the little guy, along with all that malarkey about doing "what's right". But any idiot can do something positive to help the world. It takes a true magnificent bastard to just use the law to waste people's time. Like State Sen. Ernie Chambers. He's suing God. For something or another--I would guess it would have to be the whole "suffering of the innocent" or "bad things happening to good people" or for the existence of Glenn Beck, but Chambers actually went with "God Is A Terrorist".

Now I don't know what's worse--the fact that this story is practically the same as a storyline from Ally McBeal, or that I actually remember a commercial for that damn show from about 10 years ago instead of important things like how interest rates affect the economy or how to throw a knuckleball. At this point, I'm leaning more towards "Column B".


However, this story DOES give me the opportunity to pass along the greatest legal maneuver ever pulled. You can read all about it here, but here's the highlight:

Pursuant to that lawsuit, Washington filed a “Motion to Kiss My Ass” in which he moved “all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith to kiss my got damn ass sorry mother fucker you.”

I'm so damn proud to be an American right now.