The Law School has become a petri dish. Dozens of students have been out sick (including this one). Classes have shrunk to half their size. Some professors have been calling in sick. I had forgotten how volatile biological systems can be when you pack 700 of us into one building during flu season.
To make matters worse, briefs are due for LRW tomorrow. From what I can tell, many people are struggling to keep working while the viruses keep working. As for me, I'm nearly done. But only with the help of a lot of tea.
2.27.2008
2.22.2008
"Oeniphile Rejoice" Part III
Some of my luckier colleagues at IU Law today did not have their usual Constitutional Law class. That is because their professor, Mr. Patrick Baude, had oral aruments in Chicago before the Seventh Circuit regarding the Indiana wine shipping case, Baude v. Heath. I wrote about the decision before Judge Tinder back in November.
The 16 filed briefs are available here, while an MP3 of the oral argument itself can be heard here. From what I can tell, arguments went well... for the state. Judges Posner and Easterbrook did not seem to like what Professor Tanford included in his brief (chastising him like they were LRW professors). Nor did they like the way he argued, nor the way he listened. Hopefully the court finds for the oeniphiles so that we Hoosiers can be one step closer to having the freedom to buy what we want through the internet and the mail, but I'm not holding my breath for that holding.
I would think it would be beneficial for his class to read some of this stuff. Always good to hear someone you know arguing before a circuit court, even if it is a bit brutal.
The 16 filed briefs are available here, while an MP3 of the oral argument itself can be heard here. From what I can tell, arguments went well... for the state. Judges Posner and Easterbrook did not seem to like what Professor Tanford included in his brief (chastising him like they were LRW professors). Nor did they like the way he argued, nor the way he listened. Hopefully the court finds for the oeniphiles so that we Hoosiers can be one step closer to having the freedom to buy what we want through the internet and the mail, but I'm not holding my breath for that holding.
I would think it would be beneficial for his class to read some of this stuff. Always good to hear someone you know arguing before a circuit court, even if it is a bit brutal.
2.15.2008
TOS Reporting Live - IU Pres. McRobbie
In an exciting first for the Oratorical Snob, I am reporting live from the IU Law Moot Court Room, where IU president Michael McRobbie will be holding a press conference regarding the Hoosier Hoops Scandal. Why they chose the law school's moot court room (which can hold a mere 200 or so) rather than anywhere else on campus is unclear. Rumor has it that the idea is to show the university as fair and interested in finding truth rather than supporting the scandalous aspects of the story.
The crowd is mostly reporters, whose trucks and satellite feeds block the street in front. I heard at least one unhappy local screaming from his car that he couldn't get through the street. That, or he was yelling at the school for firing Bob Knight. Inside, many of us may have agreed with that particular angry fellow.
Listening to the various reporters chattering, I have heard that some suppose that this is actually going to be the firing of Coach Sampson. I suspect that it is a bit premature to predict that. The NCAA has been known to get facts wrong in the past, and certainly there is the issue of intent. Either way, IU wrote a very good contract for Coach Sampson that permits them to fire him for just cause. Perhaps they learned their lesson from the litigation following the Bob Knight removal.
The president's posse has just entered the room and sat down in front, alerting us that we have five minutes until the press conference begins. I think that I qualify as press, since this is a live blog feed, right? Additionally, there is a live video stream that I will link to as soon as it is available.
The press conference begins:
President McRobbie won't take questions that involve speculation or hypothetical situations. Obviously he has never been in the law school before.
Athletic Director Greenspan will have seven days to investigate the allegations and determine their truth. Fairness and due process have been mentioned, outside of my ConLaw class. Perhaps he has been in the law school. The Indianapolis firm of Ice Miller and a Business Economics and Public Policy professor will assist him.
McRobbie has not spoken to Sampson since the allegations came out. There have been conversations about resignation, but not with McRobbie. An intern found the original data that lead to the allegations. Sampson's contract does not allow suspension with pay. The only mention of suspension in the document is "without pay". McRobbie does not have the entirety of the contract memorized, but he can quote parts of it fairly well.
After the press conference, I gave some interviews to the press (as one of only a few students in attendance - perhaps they chose the law school because it is so far away from everyone else on campus). If video of those interviews becomes available on the internet, I might link to it. Otherwise, this live report is finished.
The crowd is mostly reporters, whose trucks and satellite feeds block the street in front. I heard at least one unhappy local screaming from his car that he couldn't get through the street. That, or he was yelling at the school for firing Bob Knight. Inside, many of us may have agreed with that particular angry fellow.
Listening to the various reporters chattering, I have heard that some suppose that this is actually going to be the firing of Coach Sampson. I suspect that it is a bit premature to predict that. The NCAA has been known to get facts wrong in the past, and certainly there is the issue of intent. Either way, IU wrote a very good contract for Coach Sampson that permits them to fire him for just cause. Perhaps they learned their lesson from the litigation following the Bob Knight removal.
The president's posse has just entered the room and sat down in front, alerting us that we have five minutes until the press conference begins. I think that I qualify as press, since this is a live blog feed, right? Additionally, there is a live video stream that I will link to as soon as it is available.
The press conference begins:
President McRobbie won't take questions that involve speculation or hypothetical situations. Obviously he has never been in the law school before.
Athletic Director Greenspan will have seven days to investigate the allegations and determine their truth. Fairness and due process have been mentioned, outside of my ConLaw class. Perhaps he has been in the law school. The Indianapolis firm of Ice Miller and a Business Economics and Public Policy professor will assist him.
McRobbie has not spoken to Sampson since the allegations came out. There have been conversations about resignation, but not with McRobbie. An intern found the original data that lead to the allegations. Sampson's contract does not allow suspension with pay. The only mention of suspension in the document is "without pay". McRobbie does not have the entirety of the contract memorized, but he can quote parts of it fairly well.
After the press conference, I gave some interviews to the press (as one of only a few students in attendance - perhaps they chose the law school because it is so far away from everyone else on campus). If video of those interviews becomes available on the internet, I might link to it. Otherwise, this live report is finished.
2008 General Assembly Series: SB65 and Needless Tragedy
Tragedy has befallen the nation yet again. Less than a year after the shootings at Virginia Tech, we have seen four school shootings in less than week. February 8, two students gunned down at Louisiana Tech. February 11, a high schooler shot another during gym class in Tennessee, and a junior high schooler in California is brain dead. Now, tonight, we get word that five people were killed at Northern Illinois University. This one hits particularly close to home, since I'm from northern Illinois, and at one time my brother had considered attending NIU.
I have no idea what is causing the increase in school shootings. Blame it on whomever you wish: parents, the media, the schools, rap music, or any other scapegoat. The fact is that more students are finding recourse through violence in schools. The fact that these shooting sprees tend to end in suicide does not mean that they are intended as suicide missions; I would tend to believe that at least some of these shooters realized what they had done and concluded that the only way out was through suicide.
How fortunate that the Indiana General Assembly happens to have bills before it to help prevent such shootings in Indiana. While nothing can make us 100% safe (even in the law school), I think that the laws the GA might pass would help disincentivize such shootings.
Senate Bill 0065, the so-called Handguns In Public bill is essential, and must be passed quickly, especially with this last week in the forefront of our minds. SB65 would add language to Title 35 that would read, in part:
"A person who possesses a valid license to carry a handgun issued under IC 35-47-2 may not be prohibited from possessing a handgun on land or in buildings and other structures owned or leased by:
(1) the state or a political subdivision of the state; or
(2) a nonpublic elementary school, nonpublic secondary school, or nonpublic postsecondary educational institution."
With the obvious exceptions of airports, prisons, and courthouses, under SB65 no card-carrying Hoosier could be prohibited from having a concealed weapon in a public place. This makes tremendous sense, but let me start by discussing the opposing side.
Opponents are concerned that the bill would mean more violence in schools. After all, if schools have more weapons, only more violence can occur, right? Wrong. First of all, to get a CCW, one must be over 18. That means high school kids (those who would be most likely to go off because of a hormonal imbalance or because a girl turned him down for a dance) would not have access to them, but the teachers (i.e. the people whose responsibility it is to guard the young people) would.
Further, since no person who has been convicted of a felony can get a CCW, the riskiest college-age students would also be prevented. On the other hand, responsible students who took the time to fill out the paper work and get registered would be able to keep weapons, in case, say, a student starts shooting in the middle of a geology lecture. Additionally, professors and administrators could keep a weapon for such times.
In other words, the good guys get armed while the bad guys either don't, or they resort to the same means they do now - that is, they carry them illegally.
On the other hand, a potential gunman would have second thoughts if he knew that any person he pulled a gun on was also armed. Certainly a gunman appearing in front of a class of 165 students to start shooting would fear, knowing that 150 guns were aimed back.
But even if we assume the possibility of deterrence was insufficient to prevent the shooting, the duration of the shooting would be dramatically shorter. The shooting at Virginia Tech went on for 9 minutes, and more than thirty people lose their lives. Imagine after minute 1, or even minute 2, how many lives could have been saved if even one person had possessed a firearm to stop the shooter.
Sadly, a similar bill (SB356) did not pass its third reading, due to a lack of a constitutional majority.
Any reasonable person knows that there is little we can do to deter a potential school-shooter. If he has his mind made up, then he's going to do it, and saying "No Guns on Campus" will mean nothing. But while we can't prevent such shootings easily, we can at least provide some protection for the potential victims of these tragedies. The Senate needs to vote Yes on SB65, and they need to do it now, before any Hoosier blood is tragically spilled.
I have no idea what is causing the increase in school shootings. Blame it on whomever you wish: parents, the media, the schools, rap music, or any other scapegoat. The fact is that more students are finding recourse through violence in schools. The fact that these shooting sprees tend to end in suicide does not mean that they are intended as suicide missions; I would tend to believe that at least some of these shooters realized what they had done and concluded that the only way out was through suicide.
How fortunate that the Indiana General Assembly happens to have bills before it to help prevent such shootings in Indiana. While nothing can make us 100% safe (even in the law school), I think that the laws the GA might pass would help disincentivize such shootings.
Senate Bill 0065, the so-called Handguns In Public bill is essential, and must be passed quickly, especially with this last week in the forefront of our minds. SB65 would add language to Title 35 that would read, in part:
"A person who possesses a valid license to carry a handgun issued under IC 35-47-2 may not be prohibited from possessing a handgun on land or in buildings and other structures owned or leased by:
(1) the state or a political subdivision of the state; or
(2) a nonpublic elementary school, nonpublic secondary school, or nonpublic postsecondary educational institution."
With the obvious exceptions of airports, prisons, and courthouses, under SB65 no card-carrying Hoosier could be prohibited from having a concealed weapon in a public place. This makes tremendous sense, but let me start by discussing the opposing side.
Opponents are concerned that the bill would mean more violence in schools. After all, if schools have more weapons, only more violence can occur, right? Wrong. First of all, to get a CCW, one must be over 18. That means high school kids (those who would be most likely to go off because of a hormonal imbalance or because a girl turned him down for a dance) would not have access to them, but the teachers (i.e. the people whose responsibility it is to guard the young people) would.
Further, since no person who has been convicted of a felony can get a CCW, the riskiest college-age students would also be prevented. On the other hand, responsible students who took the time to fill out the paper work and get registered would be able to keep weapons, in case, say, a student starts shooting in the middle of a geology lecture. Additionally, professors and administrators could keep a weapon for such times.
In other words, the good guys get armed while the bad guys either don't, or they resort to the same means they do now - that is, they carry them illegally.
On the other hand, a potential gunman would have second thoughts if he knew that any person he pulled a gun on was also armed. Certainly a gunman appearing in front of a class of 165 students to start shooting would fear, knowing that 150 guns were aimed back.
But even if we assume the possibility of deterrence was insufficient to prevent the shooting, the duration of the shooting would be dramatically shorter. The shooting at Virginia Tech went on for 9 minutes, and more than thirty people lose their lives. Imagine after minute 1, or even minute 2, how many lives could have been saved if even one person had possessed a firearm to stop the shooter.
Sadly, a similar bill (SB356) did not pass its third reading, due to a lack of a constitutional majority.
Any reasonable person knows that there is little we can do to deter a potential school-shooter. If he has his mind made up, then he's going to do it, and saying "No Guns on Campus" will mean nothing. But while we can't prevent such shootings easily, we can at least provide some protection for the potential victims of these tragedies. The Senate needs to vote Yes on SB65, and they need to do it now, before any Hoosier blood is tragically spilled.
2.01.2008
My Hero and His Fleet
In Constitutional Law, we happen to be discussing the separation of powers. Our discussions in class me reminded me of a story about my favorite President, and as a "TGIF"-type posting, I thought I'd share.
Theodore Roosevelt has got to be my favorite U.S. President. Sure, there are some other good ones, but I really like him. He was, of course, our youngest president, and probably the one with the most exciting life. He seems to be the type of politician that we today lack: a true statesman, but one who gets what he wants, and was quite handy with a gun.
In December 1907, President Roosevelt made the ultimate display of not only American power, but presidential power. It was a rough time. Japan was flaunting its victory over the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War, and the U.S. fleet in the Pacific was still quite small. President Roosevelt assembled a fleet of 16 battleships and their supporting vessels, painted brilliant white, and proposed to send them around the world a la Magellan.
Congress disagreed. They saw it as wasteful, and potentially dangerous. The fleet couldn't pass through Panama, so they would have to travel around South America, then to victorious Japan.
But President Roosevelt was a stubborn man, and, as a trained lawyer, knew that the President had the power to move the military, not Congress. Congress refused to pay for the trip, a correct use of their powers. Roosevelt told Congress that he didn't need their money, and at Congress's dismay, he sent the fleet on their journey on December 16, 1907.
When the fleet reached Japan, Roosevelt went to Congress. He told them that the navy was out of money. Congress was left with the option to fund the return journey or strand the fleet at sea. If they ever wanted the fleet back, they would have to pay for it to circumnavigate the globe. President Roosevelt had used the beauty of the Constitution to smack Congress in the face.
That is why he is my hero.
Theodore Roosevelt has got to be my favorite U.S. President. Sure, there are some other good ones, but I really like him. He was, of course, our youngest president, and probably the one with the most exciting life. He seems to be the type of politician that we today lack: a true statesman, but one who gets what he wants, and was quite handy with a gun.
In December 1907, President Roosevelt made the ultimate display of not only American power, but presidential power. It was a rough time. Japan was flaunting its victory over the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War, and the U.S. fleet in the Pacific was still quite small. President Roosevelt assembled a fleet of 16 battleships and their supporting vessels, painted brilliant white, and proposed to send them around the world a la Magellan.
Congress disagreed. They saw it as wasteful, and potentially dangerous. The fleet couldn't pass through Panama, so they would have to travel around South America, then to victorious Japan.
But President Roosevelt was a stubborn man, and, as a trained lawyer, knew that the President had the power to move the military, not Congress. Congress refused to pay for the trip, a correct use of their powers. Roosevelt told Congress that he didn't need their money, and at Congress's dismay, he sent the fleet on their journey on December 16, 1907.
When the fleet reached Japan, Roosevelt went to Congress. He told them that the navy was out of money. Congress was left with the option to fund the return journey or strand the fleet at sea. If they ever wanted the fleet back, they would have to pay for it to circumnavigate the globe. President Roosevelt had used the beauty of the Constitution to smack Congress in the face.
That is why he is my hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)