More Lawyer Nerdiness

I was looking at the Ledbetter case again and it got me thinking about a project I have been meaning to undertake.

There is significant disagreement about which of the Circuit Courts of Appeal get reversed by the Supreme Court the most. The debate centers on whether the Ninth Circuit is as crazy as many people argue it is.

Proponents of this view point out that the 9th Circuit gets reversed more times than any other circuit. Others point out that the 9th gets more cases reviewed more often because it is so much bigger than the other Circuits.

I have this idea floating around that would look at data that I haven't seen analyzed yet: I want to count the votes.

The Supreme Court reverses most cases it reviews--why would it take a case if all it wanted to do was agree? None of the Circuits have great records at the Supreme Court. At the same time, few decisions are unanimous, which means that some justice probably voted to affirm. Why not count up the votes?

Supreme Court opinions are binary in the sense that one party wins and one party loses, but examining the cases as wins or losses clouds the fact that the Court splits on many cases. Furthermore, in many cases every justice votes to reverse but cannot agree on the reasons. To plot out which Circuit most resembles the Supreme Court, counting the votes to affirm or reverse takes into effect the data most relevant.

But when am I going to do this? Shouldn't I be studying for the bar?

The Ledbetter Case

Justice Alito wrote this week that a person who wants to sue his employer under Title VII for discriminatory compensation schemes has to sue within a time that is calculated from when the discriminatory decision was made.

Justice Ginsburg dissenting, wanting to establish a rule that the time limitations began all over again each time the employee received a paycheck that reflected the discriminatory decision.

Who is right? Which rule is better? Why?

Ain't being a lawyer fun?

Evil

The action of this woman who hung her children was evil.

Perhaps there was some postpartum depression involved, perhaps there was domestic violence. But don't brush past the fact that we should feel moral outrage that such a thing should happen and that a person would do it.

I do not pretend to understand what happened. I am not trying to apportion fault. But I hope that as we learn what happened, we do not lose our sense of evil.

We must admit the existence of evil if we admit the existence of good.

Gizoogle

I love automatic translations.

Check out the brooding omnipresence in jive here.

Vacation

Hilton Head Island is one of the finest places I've been.

With any luck, my blog posting this week will be much happier than usual. I am too young to be such an old man.

When is a Small Number a Big One?

A recent Pew Research Poll (pdf) found that roughly 26% of American Muslims youths (under 30) believe that suicide attacks targeting civilians in defense of Islam are acceptable (p. 53-54). More interesting to me, while the vast majority of Muslims polled said that suicide missions are never justified, a greater number said that the attacks are "often" or "sometimes" justified (15%) than "rarely" justified (11%). I interpret that trend as evidence of polarization.

Again, the responses of American Muslims in support of suicide bombing are lower than the responses of the Muslim population in Europe. Don't think I'm talking about Islam. I am talking about some radical fringe.

I heard a lady on CNN say something to effect of "the poll shows that three quarters of the most disaffected group of American Muslims, those most prone to radicalization, are opposed to suicide attacks on civilians in every instance."

But when is 25% a small number and when is it a large number? To say that 75% of my organs are functioning is to say that I am dead; however, having my heart beat at 75% of its maximum rate is to say that I am walking briskly.

These numbers do not interpret themselves.

Another number that stood out to me: 40% affirmatively said that Arabs "carried out the 9/11 attacks" (p. 51). Almost an equal number refused to respond. For Muslims under 30, 38% stated that Arabs did not carry out the attack.

Are these numbers large or small?

A Note on Some Format Changes

This is really an apology. I've taken down links to several of my friends' blogs. My purpose was to provide them with a bit of anonymity and to maintain as much privacy as possible.

I find myself occasionally writing things about which people have strong opinions. Perhaps we are better off if I continue brooding "out there" instead of including a bunch of information by which I am easily identifiable. There is a kind of blog circle (a blircle?) that I fit into, and I did not want to invite everyone into that ring.

If you want your blog back on the list, I am of course more than happy to oblige. I'm still reading, don't worry. I merely considered it my duty, as more people I don't know come here to read, to give my friends the options of remaining anonymous.

Most of my friends prefer to remain anonymous as it is. I can't blame them.

Western-Style Justice

Jonah Goldberg linked to this article under the heading "Karma Comedian."

A dude in California tried to kill his girlfriend by parking their car on some railroad tracks just before a train came. The train hit the car, sent it flying, and it killed him as he ran away.

The girlfriend survived.

A Gas Price Paradox

Gas prices are pretty darn high right now, even though the price of crude oil is lower than it was this time last year. Industry analysts suggest that the reasons for the high prices are high ethanol prices and low refining capacity.

Ethanol should get cheaper with time, but remember that corn farmers are now in the energy business.

Interestingly, the rush to produce alternative fuels may keep gas prices high by discouraging companies from investing in new refinery capacity. Refinieries are huge industrial operations that cost lots and take years to pay off. If we are so insistent on getting beyond gas, why would an oil company want to build a refinery?

It all comes down to a simple question that is hard to answer: are we going to get beyond gas or are we going to stick with it? Increasingly, the tough talk about ending the addiction to oil is going to mean oil costs more. If we keep talking, we are going to have to work and hope for a viable alternative.

This Was Not Intended as a Joke

I will keep my source anonymous, but this is real. I have it on good information.

What can a dude say in the face of such aggressive nonsense?

Thanks All

I have much for which to be thankful.

Thanks to all of you fellow law students (aka graduates). It was a wonderful three years.

Thanks to all who came to the party on Saturday! I had a blast. You've honored me by your attendance and your friendship.

And thanks to Melissa. A lot.

A Compressed Air Car

Instapundit has linked to a story about a car that runs on compressed air. Check it out.

It's got a top speed of about 68 mph, which works for commuter driving in Europe and will hopefully work in India and China. It costs about $2 to fill up on air and then the car can run for at least 125 miles, or about 10 hours of driving time. It has double the range of electric cars and costs about 1/10th as much per mile as a gas-powered car (assuming European petrol prices). The air exhaust is cold enough to cool the car.

Heating would appear to be a problem, however.

Reminder number 246,376,276,456,876 that the way forward actually involves going forward. Backwards simply won't do. Who knows if this kind of thing will work, but I'm really glad that really smart people want to make fantastic fortunes solving problems.

(If anyone can explain why every triad of numbers above ends with a 6, you deserve to make a fantastic fortune as well).

Why I'm Glad to Live in Alabama, Part 1

1. I no longer reside in the state which gave us Jimmy Carter.

I'm no fan of Jimmy Carter, especially when it comes to his political decisions. Habitat for Humanity is a great thing, and I'll credit where it's due, but Jimmy Carter has lost me with the things he's said in the last 10 years.

Most recently, he said that George Bush's administration is "the worst in history." Really?

I would like to point the former President to a couple examples in history, most notably the Warren G. Harding administration. But, I think President Carter could stand to hold a mirror up to himself for a second. When he left office, American power was at perhaps its lowest ebb since 1914. I view the Carter presidency as a failure to act. He seems to me a man who cannot translate the knowledge of what is right into the actions that must follow therefrom.

On the positive side, however, Carter reminds me of some pretty good literature. His is the wisdom of Tolkein's Denethor. He also reminds me of a poet I studied this semester. If any of ya'll have read Wallace Stevens, perhaps you will allow me to quote some lines that remind me Carter.

From "Sunday Morning"

We live in an old chaos of the sun,
Or old dependency of day and night,
Or island solitude, unsponsored, free,
Of that wide water, inescapable.
Deer walk upon our mountains, and the quail
Whistle about us their spontaneous cries;
Sweet berries ripen in the wilderness;
And, in the isolation of the sky,
At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings.

UPDATE!
Well, it turns out that Carter didn't intend to criticize Bush personally, but rather intended his remarks at "the administration."

This clarification strikes me as odd. I have not been aware of this administration being inept--the main criticism of our government in the last years is that it is doing the wrong thing. Invading Iraq was wrong. Taxcuts are wrong.

To judge this administration is to judge, I think, the rightness or wrongness of its goals. The Bush Presidency has been all about big things (which is odd and needs its own post). I am not aware that the Bush administration is governing in a manner less apt than prior administrations--the problem is not how good the administration is at governing but rather is that the adminstration is governing towards the wrong things.

And I think almost all of us would agree that George W. Bush has a lot to do with the things towards which his government strives. Unless or course Dick Cheney is behind it...

If Carter really meant to say that the administration is bungling and inept, he is making a criticism which does not seem to have much basis. If, however, he is really talking about the goals Bush is setting, he should not have backed down. One way or another, the "clarification" has made things worse.

Really?

Islamophobia is the worst form of terrorism.

I find this stuff shocking. The forgiegn ministers of several Islamic nations have issued a statement that asserts that fear is Islam is more dangerous than terrorism done by Muslims who happen to be terrorists.

We can argue about whether the Islamic faith actually fosters terrorism, but it is really hard to argue that most of the major terrorist acts in the last decade were carried out by Muslims. We cannot equate the horrors of Bali and Madrid with the publication of offensive cartoons in a newspaper. We cannot equate the Pope's statements about Islam with the murder of 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Any scale which finds the cartoons and the statements more serious than the murders is measuring by weights I do not know.

Check out these statements. The first is an example of using words to say nothing.

"[Islamophobia] is something that has assumed xenophobic proportions." Which is to say, the fear of the Islamic nations (if it exists) has reached the scale of a fear of foriegners, which is what xenophobia means. Does anybody know what they were trying to say?

Other statements seem to be complete nonsequiters to me. For example "Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks...." I would agree that the incidence of Islamophobia increased after 9-11, but I wonder why that particular date is relevant? Did something happen on 9-11? It's a funny date to pick.

Again: "It gained further momentum after the Madrid and London bombings. The killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004 was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims." Ergo, Islamophobia increased after attacks by Muslims.

The argument seems to be that the West should not fear Muslims in general and should not degrade the Islamic religion. We're good so far.

But I thought that the ministers said that Islamophobia was more dangerous than any other form of terrorism. Showing (without actually using data) that there was a religious backlash after attacks carried out by proponents of a particular faith is one thing; actually showing that the backlash is worse than the initial attack is one thing.

I hav

City of Ponoma and Why Blogging is Great

Some guys over at Foothills Cities, a blog about the LA area, have attracted the ire of the City of Ponoma. Ponoma is claiming that something on the blog is libelous and the city attorney has threatened a lawsuit.

The only problem is that it is impossible to libel a government agency (See New York Times v. Sullivan).

Why exactly is the city attorney threatening a suit he can't bring in his official capacity? Is he threatening to sue on behalf of some private interests? Let me ask, with Instapundit, why tax dollars should pay for lawuits aimed at private interests?

Instapundit is all over it. The Volokh Conspiracy is, too.

The blogosphere is going to make sure that the City of Ponoma, its officials and its taxpayers, know the First Amendment pretty well by the time this is over.

News as public education! The academy and the polity in dialogue about real problems!

Blogs exist for this kind of stuff.

Great Bumper Sticker

Melissa and I actually saw this one last night, except that the one we saw had a little graphic on it that completed the effect.

People who buy these things and put them on your car, who are you? And what makes you want to tell these things to the world?

Judicial Clerkships

I am fascinated by what judges do. They seem to live at the exploding intersection of academic (perhaps "brooding") law, abstract ideas of justice and fairness, and very concrete actions and results. How is a person to handle these responsibilities?

(Forgive me for romanticizing the judicial process. I am inclined to have a more minimalist view of the judicial process, but that minimalism could be said to be a mechanism of coping with the mystery.)

All of this fascination has made me want to work for judges for a while.

Next year, I get to work with a Federal District Court judge here in town.

Yesterday, I dropped off an application with a Circuit Court of Appeals judge.

Let me say this: I love blogging. A lot. But I'd gladly leave all the brooding for the chance to deal with the real thing.

Definitions in Action, Pt. 2

Today's definition is a personal favorite of mine.

Usufruct. It's a noun. It means the right to enjoy or profit from someone else's property, so long as you don't harm the property. Lawyers often speak of "usufruct" interests in land, for example. Somebody could have the right to harvest crops from the land of another, provided that the harvesting party did not otherwise damage the land. I think usufructuary interests often involve timber or mineral rights as well.

The derivation of usufruct is, most obviously, Latin. It comes from usus et fructus, which means "use and enjoyment."

But I think we could profit from thinking more on the usufructuary nature of all of our property. If we embrace the idea of stewardship, then we must recognize that we have only usufruct in all our property.

We can't take it with us. In light of this fact, many think of future generations as the ultimate owners, but I think they miss the point. The next generation is the successor in interest, but they can only get from us as much title as we have to give. If our usufruct is transient, so must theirs. They can't take it with them, either.

So either we embrace Ayn Rand and claim all the world in fee simple absolte or we recognize some ultimate Owner. I don't really see another option.

Note: I sometimes slip into using usufruct as an adjective. If anyone can find me the proper adjectival form, I promise to make the necessary corrections.

Note 2: Thanks, Mark. The sky is a couple hues darker and the grass a little sharper now that ya'll are gone. We'll see you soon.

Another Interesting NYT Article on Abortion and Disabilities

These articles are interesting. It appears that there are going to be 11 of them, so stay tuned for links to 9 more...

The most recent article explores the dilemma in which advocates of choice find themselves when they are confronted with the fact that a lot of women who discover that their child will have Down syndrome or some other "less serious condition" exercise their right to choose an abortion.

The Pro-Choice movement has focused on the woman doing the choosing. The emerging data on abortion and disability put the emphasis in the womb.

I'll close by including a quote I found interesting.

“You’ve got these two basic liberal values on a kind of collision course,” said Rayna Rapp, an anthropologist at New York University who has studied attitudes toward prenatal testing.

Without some mechanism, some Tao, to resolve these conflicts, how can anyone make a defensible decision?

A More Complete Statement of My Intentions

I think I've got a pretty good handle on my future as a blogger. With any luck, it will be witty; it will certainly be brief.

I am going to have intermittent internet access throughout the summer, and will probably be able to post in torrential spurts--lots when I'm "studying for the bar" and very little when I'm not.

Come fall, however, I'm done. I've taken a job with a Federal District Court Judge and I can find no way to square blogging with the nature of my work. I'll hopefully keep the family information flowing through Melissa. If I'm really lucky, she may even grant me posting privileges...

Consider the brooding omnipresence to be an extended experiment.