I saw this
And it reminded me of this: Continue reading
David Schoenfield writes this latest top ten list to generate some traffic on ESPN’s website. I will happily oblige to point out that he new has lost all credibility.
Calling Frank McCourt one of baseball’s worst owners in its entire history – nay, the second worst owner in history – is so off base it is ridiculous. (see what I did there?)
I will only point to the fact that
Blockbuster Wayne Huizenga* never shows up once. In fact, no company shows up anywhere on the list**. Only individual owners are eligible, apparently. I don’t think any baseball fan I have ever met would consider any list of bad owners complete if not one Inc., Co., LLC, or LLP were listed.
Frank McCourt turned that team around. They became competitive again after he purchased them and he generated real fan interest. He may not be the best owner ever, but I know a lot of teams that would take him happily over the multi-national firm that frets over the cost of World Series Rings. If Shoenfield is looking to place blame, I think he should look somewhere else. Continue reading
SCOTUS gave lots of fodder for 2L Comment writers today . . .
1) Ginsburg, in ruling that proximate cause is confusing to normal people and a lower standard is mandated by the Federal Employers Liability Act, cites Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad and law students around the world throw up and go in to a fetal position.
2) Scalia says that a California law restricting the distribution of violent video games does not stand up to strict scrutiny.
3) CJ Roberts strikes down the Arizona public financing law because the law overly burdens speech. I have not read the opinion yet, but it seems to me that the Chief is making some interesting leaps, beyond money=speech, to get to this result. Time permitting, I’ll try to write it up.
Mixed bag, as I see it. Ginsburg doesn’t disappoint, Scalia demonstrates why I actually like him sometimes, and Roberts takes a right turn I’m not sure how he justifies.
” As in the case of the no-fly zone patrols and periodic airstrikes in Bosnia before the deployment of ground troops in 1995 and the NATO bombing campaign in connection with the Kosovo conflict in 1999—two military campaigns initiated without a prior declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization—President Obama determined that the use of force in Libya by the United States would be limited to airstrikes and associated support missions; the President made clear that “[t]he United States is not going to deploy ground troops in Libya.” Obama March 18, 2011 Remarks. The planned operations thus avoided the difficulties of withdrawal and risks of escalation that may attend commitment of ground forces—two factors that this Office has identified as “arguably” indicating “a greater need for approval [from Congress] at the outset,” to avoid creating a situation in which “Congress may be confronted with circumstances in which the exercise of its power to declare war is effectively foreclosed.” Proposed Bosnia Deployment, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 333.”
Authority to use Military Force in Libya, Official Opinion of Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, April 4, 2011, available at: http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/authority-military-use-in-libya.pdf
invaded attacked cooperated with other countries to enact force upon military targets in Libya to oust unsettle vaguely encourage the retirement of Moammar Gadhafi. His weapon of choice was bombs and missiles. A lot of missiles. There was question as to whether Obama had the authority to use military force in the first place. The Office of Legal Counsel – a presumably non-partisan office in the DOJ – issued an opinion, quoted above, that said all was kosher. Few quibbled with that. Under the War Powers Resolution, however, he has 60 days to play G.I. Joe before the Congress needs to officially approve.
A friend sent me this article and asked my opinion. I assume that since I am (1) a former political consultant and (2) a pretty liberal guy she was curious what my perspective was. Well, here’s what I sent:
It seems to me that it’s begging the question a bit. It would be a wonderful world if more women were in office, absolutely. The more perspectives, the better. However, I take issue with the proposition that “women run to do something, men run to be somebody.” That seems to be a little too convenient and self-serving conclusion. I think the better answer is that women and men are different in many ways, but individuals much more so. Beyond differences in the sexes, though, I think statistics and politics are better explanations. Continue reading
“I wouldn’t worry about it too much. You have great speaking skills, are very intelligent, and most of all you can really handle people well – and that’s what makes you a successful lawyer.”
“But I need to get in the door first.”
“Well, yeah, I guess you’re right”
I love my professor, but he damn sure has a great way of accidentally making you feel bad. He called me to his office today to chat. He was disappointed in my grade in his class (as was I) but he and I get along well and he wanted to chat. So, we chatted.
The crux of the conversation was why I can’t shake being a “B” student. I work hard, “make great contributions in class” (
whatever that means read: I love to hear myself talk), and stay pretty focused on studies. Yet, for whatever reason, I have yet to get a solid “A” in a year of law school. Frankly, I am at a loss as to what to do to change that.
To a lot of people this will seem like a silly discussion. What is so bad about being a “B” student? To law students and lawyers it makes much more sense. It is hard enough to get a decent job in the legal profession. Try doing it not coming from a T-14 school. Now try it with a “B” average. It is having two hands tied behind your back. It is not recommended.
Is that right? Probably not. I know a lot of lawyers and I know of lot of people who I would consider successful. I think some of them would do quite well in law school. I am sure many would not. That is because of the obvious fact that any career, just like life, relies on your ability to negotiate people, changes, crisis, and many other factors that aren’t learned in books. However, as Justice Scalia explained to a group of WCL students, when you have a stack of resumes several feet deep you are just as well to throw out any that don’t come from a top school (or have a certain GPA, Moot Court, Law Review, etc). I can’t blame someone for that approach. But damn, it sucks.