Thank you, Dale Franks

Ah, the post I've long needed the Mormon Democrats to read. As I've said before, I have nothing against Mormon Democrats, per se, but a lot of the ones I know constantly trot out the "I'm a Democrat because I'm more moral than you/live my religion better than you" canard. It's annoying, to put it very mildly.

Beldar on law school and law practice

And how the twain should meet more often than they do. Here were my thoughts:

But neither should law schools be conducted, as so often seems to be the case, on the premise that their mission is to produce more law professors.

I consider my whole third year of law school wasted. I already had learned to "think like a lawyer" (my belief is that if you can't learn how in two years, maybe you should do something else with your life). I needed actual practical experience. Granted, a lot of it is my own fault for not being more active in seeking out opportunities to gain real experience, but I was still required to take classes on the theoretical. Every time I asked a question along the lines of "yeah, but how often does that actually happen in court?" I'd get a puzzled look and an "well, I'll have to check on that" or "well, when I was practicing [from 1977-1978], we...."

The only available classes for practical experience were "Lawyering Process" and "Practice Court". Each of which were heavy on the lecture, with what I would describe as a "token" practice experience. For example, one week we did "Cross-examining" (Beldar may remember that I wrote him an email and he was gracious enough to reply, at length, which reply was more helpful than anything I'd gotten from the professor). Tuesday, a long lecture, with war stories mixed in. Thursday, everyone got 5-10 minutes to cross-examine some other student on a pre-arranged fact pattern. Then, we never spoke of it again. How helpful was this to me? Hah.

I'm new enough now to the practice of law that I still get nervous for depositions and contested hearings where I'm going to have to educate the judge on what the statute actually says and why my opponent's argument of "yeah, so?" should not stand. But I feel like I'd be a heck of lot less nervous, and better at my job (which people who are in real trouble are kind enough to pay me to do), if the school I went to in preparation for the job, had, you know, actually taught me something useful about it.

Utah:School Vouchers

Wanted to blog about this later.

Edit: Ok, I'm here and I just don't understand the view that is anti-"people can go to school where they want and take their education tax dollars with them". Is there a non-collectivist, socialistically-based argument?

Fred Thompson smacks Gandhi-figuratively, of course (Gandhi's dead)

Why exactly does Ghandi continue to get, not only a free pass, but lots of respect in popular culture ? Oh, because popular culture is remarkably uninformed? Yeah, that's the easy answer. I find it remarkable that even a cursory bit of research turns up things like this and this and this. The second one, an analysis by neo-neocon, is interesting because it shows that some of Gandhi's beliefs were, frankly, nuts. I personally believe that it is evil to not defend your family, whereas Gandhi believed that any violence was evil. We probably both take those propositions on religious faith, but for those who still ask "what would Gandhi do?", don't they have to accept all of his presuppositions as well?

AG for SCOTUS?

David Frum is obviously working off a different playbook than I am. At what point did he think Gonzales would be confirmable? He thinks AG is on the "short list" of confirmable candidates? That's dang confusing to me. I think he's shown himself over and over to be in over his head and well, kind of clueless.

Look, the Democrats are going to attempt to filibuster anyone who GWB nominates (assuming he gets another nomination) but the Republicans just need to man up and hold them responsible.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

In this post, the boys over at QandO discuss General Pace's recent comments regarding his personal feelings on homosexuals in the military (Nein) and his official feelings on the matter (we support Congress's determination that...yadda).

I understand that Don't Ask, Don't Tell necessarily carries the connotation that homosexuality is bad and/or inferior to heterosexuality. After all, there's nothing wrong with saying "hey, Captain Jones, how's your wife?" but there would be with a "hey, Captain Jones, how's your boyfriend?" So, to that extent, and the extent that the second question could get Captain Jones (who may be a very fine soldier indeed) thrown out of the service, I think I disagree with DADT as a policy. However, I also believe that at work, conversations should rarely if ever go deeper than "hey, Bill, how's your wife/boyfriend?" if even that deep. I think Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a wise personal policy to follow, but not one that should be implemented by the State.

Blogging is Hard

It's true, I just don't have the time to put into this that it seems lots of other folks do. I guess that's why I need a group blog, so you can post a little bit here and there like Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy. Then again, Beldar went a long time in between blogging, and usually just does one story a day. There's no reason why you have to be Instapundit or even QandO (another group blog).

Maybe that's what I'll do, I'll write just one post a day, for a while and see what it gets me.

Maybe we just need a new post.

Just working out some bugs in blogger. Carry on.

Well, the Spin is on

It appears that the WaPo and the New York Times are already engaging in the misinformation campaign with regard to the DC Circuit's opinion yesterday declaring that the Second Amendment secures an individual, not a collective, right.

One thing I've noticed about the comments is that they seem pretty clearly to have NOT read the opinion itself. The characterizations of it are so off-base, unless I conclude the commenters are flat lying, I can only guess they've not read it. Second, many of them seem to be focusing on "this will lead to X, which is bad" and ignoring completely the question of "what does the Constitution actually mean?" I don't think those who are talking about this in the coming days should let the end-result people off the hook so easily.

Oh, and go ahead and read the opinion yourself. It's not that tough to plow through.

DC Circuit declares Second Amendment an "individual right"

Here’s some really wonderful language in the opinion.

Even if “keep” and “bear” are not read as a unitary term, we are told, the meaning of “keep” cannot be broader than “bear” because the Second Amendment only protects the use of arms in the course of militia service. Id. at 26-27. But this proposition assumes its conclusion, and we do not take it seriously.

The argument that “keep” as used in “the right of the people to keep . . . Arms” shares a military meaning with “keep up” as used in “every state shall keep up a well regulated militia” mocks usage, syntax, and common sense. Such outlandish views are likely advanced because the plain meaning of “keep” strikes a mortal blow to the collective right theory.

I loved this passage:

The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if
the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.

Then there’s this from the Brady Campaign:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington advocacy group, said in a statement the decision ``is judicial activism at its worst.’’

``Two federal judges have negated the democratically expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia,’’ Helmke said.

That’s just a flatly ridiculous comment to make in light of the pages and pages and pages the Court dedicated to a discussion of the Constitutional language and history. Hey, Paul, ever heard of that "supreme law of the land" thing?

300

It seems both Allah and Ace weren't going to see it, until they read this fantastically ironic, self-ignorant whine from some chick at Slate. Now, they will "like it whether they like it or not."

Don't you hate it when historical fact gets in the way of the Narrative? I guess my question is, if it bothers you so much that the people making a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae made the bad guys "brown people", how exactly would YOU have made this movie? Cast Ken Watanabe as Xerxes? Orlando Bloom? I know you've heard this before, but, do you actually read the articles you write before you submit them to Slate? You sound like the dumbest person in the world with your "how dare they cast darker-skinned people as Persians! The audacity!"

Scooter Libby

As you can imagine, I have some sympathy with him and his family, although he will likely not see a jail cell for a while, as he will be out on bail while his appeals run. Although a lot of folks are criticizing the fact that there was no underlying crime for Libby to lie about, that doesn't make it right to lie to the FBI and other governmental investigators. Frankly, better to say nothing at all. That's the counsel I'd give most anybody who was being asked questions by a cop or other governmental officer. Either plead the Fifth or say "I don't know/remember." I suppose in certain circumstances that could be a lie, but don't fall for the old "If I just explain it, the cop will understand" idea. Yeah, he'll understand that you're a sucker and he can twist what you say to get you in trouble. Just dummy up.

FedSoc

Simon blogs the FedSoc thing I went to last year and the year before.

 

What the hell

Manshake.

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman

Myths of Driving

I need to save this information for the argument I know I'm going to have someday.