Talking Points Memo is doing a great job of covering the discussion at the confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor - one of the better jobs, in fact, so I recommend using that for the next few days (and reading the prior coverage by Pincus - he's a new fave). More legally oriented than, for example, the NY Times site. Also recommended - El Diario's coverage on Twitter.
As to my own feelings on the matter... I actually do think the rigour with which they're questioning her is good - she shouldn't be guaranteed to get in, because it's bloody important.
Moreover, I find the liberal side's cries of "oh, but she's so qualified that they're looking elsewhere" (see Dahlia Lithwick on The Rachel Maddow Show) a little disingenuous. I disagree - one of the first things I loved about Obama was his statement on why he wasn't going to vote for Alito. Because despite his perfect paper qualifications, Alito's record indicated that he always came out on the side of the more powerful. That indicated an imbalance in his judgment. Sotomayor has a much more mixed record, which doesn't indicate anything like Alito's bias. The problem is not that they're looking elsewhere, but where they're looking - which is straight at the big fat fact that she's a Latina.
What I hadn't realised - that I learnt from TRMS - was the constant reference to other judges of Latino descent - and particularly revolting was the implication that she had to vote the same way as Cabranes ("himself of Puerto Rican descent") on the Ricci en banc decision, or she was a racist. Oh, Jeff Sessions. Really?
As for the "wise Latina," I would expect her to possibly know a bit more about what constitutes discrimination. I've had numerous discussions with extremely bright, thoughtful men who simply did not understand that certain things felt intimidating, harassing or unpleasant to women, particularly in the workplace. If you've occupied a position of privilege your entire life, you cannot be guaranteed to understand the feelings of someone who has had barriers erected in front of them - particularly when those barriers have become increasingly subtle because most people with power have learned that you can't go around referring to a black man as "boy" and getting away with it. You use experience to help you understand context - and if you don't have that experience, you may benefit from someone who has. The decision in the school strip search case really did seem to benefit from RBG's understanding of what was reasonable as a young woman. In contrast, people like Sessions only seem to understand "discrimination" as "deprivation of privilege."
As for SS, I don't think she's anywhere near liberal enough for what I would like to see the Court become. But she'll do for now. As will the Republicans' willingness to show themselves as bitter, angry men who really aren't interested in diversity - either on the bench or in their electorate.
Showing posts with label THELAW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label THELAW. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
But This Is Different...
There's been liberal handwringing at the President's refusal to intervene in the case of Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point-educated Officer (this seems to be important, it comes up in everything - like he wouldn't matter if he was a grunt who came through community college?) who is an Arabic language specialist who came out on the Rachel Maddow show a few weeks ago, and has been fired by the U.S. military. Jon Stewart's mini-takedown is below and, while I agree with his anger, I don't think the presentation (from the media in general) is entirely fair.
One thing I will say first: I think the Obama Administration is going about this wrong, I think they should be absolutely pushing for legislation to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And perhaps, as Feministing says, he could suspend investigations into sexuality (although that wouldn't have helped Choi, who came out on television -harder to ignore, perhaps). But my point is that in one sense Obama's right that it is not his place to do this - because it needs legislation. It's a LAW. It's not some stupid Executive Order (unlike those ridiculous healthcare provider conscience things that Bushy Boy pushed through and Obama revoked), it's a law that was passed by both chambers and signed by the President. The President, as we've heard everyone (rightly) argue about the torture laws, does not get to pick and choose which laws to obey. He doesn't get to write an Executive Order and somehow, magically, it's not the law anymore. He does need to stick his boot up the arses of Congress to work on this. No doubt. But he has a constitutional mandate to execute and take care the laws are obeyed.
Yes, this is awful and it's an absolutely ridiculous, damaging, dangerous and unsafe law, but when Bushy Boy and Cheney et al. were violating and ordering violations of the laws of war, of the UCMJ, of the Convention Against Torture, this was thrown against them constantly - you can't disobey the law. To willfully misquote Lincoln, it's not all the laws but one. Now that the disobedience is something liberals want, Obama is supposed to disobey separation of powers? I thought he won, at least in part, because he represented a return to order and to respectful adherence to the Constitution and the structural balancing of powers.
To repeat, again, he needs to throw his weight behind repeal of this. Their inaction is a disgrace. But make sure when you criticise him, it's for the right reasons.
One thing I will say first: I think the Obama Administration is going about this wrong, I think they should be absolutely pushing for legislation to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And perhaps, as Feministing says, he could suspend investigations into sexuality (although that wouldn't have helped Choi, who came out on television -harder to ignore, perhaps). But my point is that in one sense Obama's right that it is not his place to do this - because it needs legislation. It's a LAW. It's not some stupid Executive Order (unlike those ridiculous healthcare provider conscience things that Bushy Boy pushed through and Obama revoked), it's a law that was passed by both chambers and signed by the President. The President, as we've heard everyone (rightly) argue about the torture laws, does not get to pick and choose which laws to obey. He doesn't get to write an Executive Order and somehow, magically, it's not the law anymore. He does need to stick his boot up the arses of Congress to work on this. No doubt. But he has a constitutional mandate to execute and take care the laws are obeyed.
Yes, this is awful and it's an absolutely ridiculous, damaging, dangerous and unsafe law, but when Bushy Boy and Cheney et al. were violating and ordering violations of the laws of war, of the UCMJ, of the Convention Against Torture, this was thrown against them constantly - you can't disobey the law. To willfully misquote Lincoln, it's not all the laws but one. Now that the disobedience is something liberals want, Obama is supposed to disobey separation of powers? I thought he won, at least in part, because he represented a return to order and to respectful adherence to the Constitution and the structural balancing of powers.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Moral Kombat | ||||
| ||||
To repeat, again, he needs to throw his weight behind repeal of this. Their inaction is a disgrace. But make sure when you criticise him, it's for the right reasons.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Touch of Evil
Yesterday, Dick Cheney appeared on The News Hour on PBS to talk about his legacy.
I thought it would make me furious, livid, any synonym for irate you can conceive. I really wasn't sure I'd make it through it all. I listened to it via podcast today. I was hoping it would fire me up for my squash match. Yet it just made me want to cry. It was revolting. The nadir for me, at least, was the part in which he justified the torture, as defined by Susan Crawford, the official in charge of prosecutions at Guantánamo, in part because all the individual techniques were authorised. He couldn't know exactly how they were all being implemented, but they were authorised, so he's in the clear. Yes, they were, by a legally faulty and morally bankrupt memorandum that the Office of Legal Counsel wrote to justify torture. A memorandum that featured so many errors the subsequent head of OLC had to revoke it, something that almost never happens to OLC memos.
It didn't make me angry, just sick to my stomach.
I thought it would make me furious, livid, any synonym for irate you can conceive. I really wasn't sure I'd make it through it all. I listened to it via podcast today. I was hoping it would fire me up for my squash match. Yet it just made me want to cry. It was revolting. The nadir for me, at least, was the part in which he justified the torture, as defined by Susan Crawford, the official in charge of prosecutions at Guantánamo, in part because all the individual techniques were authorised. He couldn't know exactly how they were all being implemented, but they were authorised, so he's in the clear. Yes, they were, by a legally faulty and morally bankrupt memorandum that the Office of Legal Counsel wrote to justify torture. A memorandum that featured so many errors the subsequent head of OLC had to revoke it, something that almost never happens to OLC memos.
It didn't make me angry, just sick to my stomach.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Administering Justice: Homos
While trugging away through some research today, I found the only occasion on which a woman could serve as a member of a jury up until we were kindly given the rights by the State:
Utterly, utterly, utterly bizarre. I plan to find out more about such "exceptions" that allowed women to partake of the rights of men.
Even better: While looking for translations, I also found out that you can translate your google into Elmer Fudd. Brilliant.
*2. Propter defectum; as if a juryman be an alien born, this is defect of birth; if he be a slave or bondman, this is defect of liberty, and he cannot be liber et legalis homo. Under the word homo, also, though a name common to both sexes, the female is however excluded, propter defectum sexus: except when a widow feigns herself with child, in order to exclude the next heir, and a suppositions birth is suspected to be intended; then upon the writ de ventre inspiciendo, a jury of women is to be impanelled to try the question, whether with child or not.Lord Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
Utterly, utterly, utterly bizarre. I plan to find out more about such "exceptions" that allowed women to partake of the rights of men.
Even better: While looking for translations, I also found out that you can translate your google into Elmer Fudd. Brilliant.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Lifted
There is nothing like the relief when a big fat heavy stormcloud that's been hanging over your head disappears. Of course, the raincloud may dump a bucket of water on you first, but that relief remains... and so it has come to pass that I have passed the NY Bar. It was a deeply painful and often humbling experience, not helped by the inadequacies of the website service today. I still know a lot of people, at 2.30pm, who do not yet know. Extremely frustrating for all concerned.
Nonetheless, I shall be dumping my bar/bri books, getting that $250 deposit and promptly spending it on shoes and booze. Thanks to everyone who was tolerant of my summer madness, and my completely self-absorbed rants about how I was destined to fail. Most thanks, as always, go to TOH for his support over the summer, constant reassurance and avid desire to look after me in the last few days despite his own (and far more important) stresses and strains.
Nonetheless, I shall be dumping my bar/bri books, getting that $250 deposit and promptly spending it on shoes and booze. Thanks to everyone who was tolerant of my summer madness, and my completely self-absorbed rants about how I was destined to fail. Most thanks, as always, go to TOH for his support over the summer, constant reassurance and avid desire to look after me in the last few days despite his own (and far more important) stresses and strains.
Friday, August 08, 2008
The ICTR - 8 August*
We woke bright and early for a good breakfast before heading down to the ICTR for the day. Again, a good breakfast, which was pretty necessary for an intense day. We arrived and sat at the wrong gate for about twenty minutes, before TC realised and we headed to the VIP gate. Oh yes, indeed, the VIP gate. Turns out we were to go on the tour / Q&A session with a group of students from the University of Nairobi, and they turned up about twenty minutes after us - just enough time for TC and I to write down the titles of several important but depressing books we wanted to read. The library at the ICTR is not catalogued along the normal lines of a law library, but based on the special needs of the workers at the ICTR. I had been shamed by the guy sitting next to me on the flight to Nairobi who was off to Kigali to look for sustainable engineering projects for his university to share in, and reading the Romeo Dallaire book that I keep meaning to read but cannot face, having read extracts from it in the week of the tenth anniversary of the start of the genocide (I think in the guardian). So I think I overcompensated when going through the collection in the library in Arusha. Still, necessary.
We had a talk from the very sweet librarian, and then had a look around a courtroom. Stupidly, we had arranged to go when the court is not in session - that starts again on the 18th, when my professor will also be there, so it was annoying timing. Therefore, we watched a fairly out of date video, and had a Q&A with someone - who had to fill in at the last minute.
That was... difficult. After a brief talk about the ICTR, the floor was open to us and the Kenyan students - doing their masters in Conflict Management / International Studies were extremely hostile to the ICTR. Extremely. It was so interesting. They cited the money (the expenditure could have built roads in all of East Africa, said one, which I think is probably true!), that it was a way to assuage the guilt of the international community who stood by and did nothing to prevent the genocide (I think that's almost certainly true). It certainly is not a deterrent - Sudan is clearly an example of that. The prisoners get to choose their own meals - many Rwandese cannot say that. Conjugal visits also stirred up some anger - and the SUVs in the car park, the number of non-Africans (although, as the ICTR guy pointed out - the guy who's probably been there the longest and so made the most money is a Tanzanian judge).
But the major problem - the lack of justice for Rwandese. I didn't realise that although there is a mandate for outreach, the UN provides no direct budget for it. That's appalling, if true. Further, during the time it has taken for the trials of around 40 men (and one woman), there have been 5,000 Rwandese trials of the perpetrators. That shocked everyone - and there was a real sense of imperialism, that the white folks of the UN were coming in to tell the Rwandese they were incapable of delivering their own justice.
There... it's hard to argue against it, but as a (would-be) lawyer, I do believe there are differences in the people they're trying at the ICTR. The ground-breaking nature of the Nahimina case - the media ones, where the radio and newspaper owners were put on trial - plus the trying of heads of state - these have profoundly changed legal concepts: of civil liberties (particularly the US-centric view that free speech, including freedom of the press is the most important thing in the world), of sovereign immunity for civil leaders. Things are fundamentally different now because of them. At least legally. But it did make me think that it would have been worth investing in infrastructure to make it happen in Rwanda. Or transfer it once the country was getting back on its feet. Particularly with their real attempts to overhaul the constitution, increase female participation in politics, and change the structure and unity of their country.
Essentially, Friday completely undermined and refined my views of what I saw rather simplistically and legally.
The rest of the afternoon was rather different. A meal in town (awesome chapatis at the Jambo Coffee Shop, with fabulous arabic coke cans - plus, Jambo is my favourite favourite swahili word), then a wander around trying to find the bus office to buy tickets for the trip to Dar. That was... hairier than I'd like. Arusha is full of guys who know someone and know better than you what you want to do, and how much you ought to pay for it. This involved some grabbing of our arms, with that guy following us for ten minutes to the bus ticket office, and shouting at us when we left for "lying" to him. That was... unpleasant. Also, our lonely planet guide is out of date, the map for Arusha is pretty poor, and the office had moved, so we had to ask repeatedly where to go and felt pretty lost. Of course, if we'd gone in a taxi, we'd have been ok, but that seems pretty wussy, and we're still in a fairly independent state of mind.
Nonetheless, we were fine, basically, and got back in one piece, despite some guy using my camera I thought to look at pictures but I realised that he was using it to zoom in on TC's arse. He seemed to like it, but it was a tad sleazy... Still, we'd learned how to say "two waters" in Swahili, which is an improvement on the zero words we had. Then it was beers, pizza, and a far too late night considering that we had to get up at 4.45 to ensure we got the bus in time the next morning... ugh. And more on that journey in the next post...
We had a talk from the very sweet librarian, and then had a look around a courtroom. Stupidly, we had arranged to go when the court is not in session - that starts again on the 18th, when my professor will also be there, so it was annoying timing. Therefore, we watched a fairly out of date video, and had a Q&A with someone - who had to fill in at the last minute.
That was... difficult. After a brief talk about the ICTR, the floor was open to us and the Kenyan students - doing their masters in Conflict Management / International Studies were extremely hostile to the ICTR. Extremely. It was so interesting. They cited the money (the expenditure could have built roads in all of East Africa, said one, which I think is probably true!), that it was a way to assuage the guilt of the international community who stood by and did nothing to prevent the genocide (I think that's almost certainly true). It certainly is not a deterrent - Sudan is clearly an example of that. The prisoners get to choose their own meals - many Rwandese cannot say that. Conjugal visits also stirred up some anger - and the SUVs in the car park, the number of non-Africans (although, as the ICTR guy pointed out - the guy who's probably been there the longest and so made the most money is a Tanzanian judge).
But the major problem - the lack of justice for Rwandese. I didn't realise that although there is a mandate for outreach, the UN provides no direct budget for it. That's appalling, if true. Further, during the time it has taken for the trials of around 40 men (and one woman), there have been 5,000 Rwandese trials of the perpetrators. That shocked everyone - and there was a real sense of imperialism, that the white folks of the UN were coming in to tell the Rwandese they were incapable of delivering their own justice.
There... it's hard to argue against it, but as a (would-be) lawyer, I do believe there are differences in the people they're trying at the ICTR. The ground-breaking nature of the Nahimina case - the media ones, where the radio and newspaper owners were put on trial - plus the trying of heads of state - these have profoundly changed legal concepts: of civil liberties (particularly the US-centric view that free speech, including freedom of the press is the most important thing in the world), of sovereign immunity for civil leaders. Things are fundamentally different now because of them. At least legally. But it did make me think that it would have been worth investing in infrastructure to make it happen in Rwanda. Or transfer it once the country was getting back on its feet. Particularly with their real attempts to overhaul the constitution, increase female participation in politics, and change the structure and unity of their country.
Essentially, Friday completely undermined and refined my views of what I saw rather simplistically and legally.
The rest of the afternoon was rather different. A meal in town (awesome chapatis at the Jambo Coffee Shop, with fabulous arabic coke cans - plus, Jambo is my favourite favourite swahili word), then a wander around trying to find the bus office to buy tickets for the trip to Dar. That was... hairier than I'd like. Arusha is full of guys who know someone and know better than you what you want to do, and how much you ought to pay for it. This involved some grabbing of our arms, with that guy following us for ten minutes to the bus ticket office, and shouting at us when we left for "lying" to him. That was... unpleasant. Also, our lonely planet guide is out of date, the map for Arusha is pretty poor, and the office had moved, so we had to ask repeatedly where to go and felt pretty lost. Of course, if we'd gone in a taxi, we'd have been ok, but that seems pretty wussy, and we're still in a fairly independent state of mind.
Nonetheless, we were fine, basically, and got back in one piece, despite some guy using my camera I thought to look at pictures but I realised that he was using it to zoom in on TC's arse. He seemed to like it, but it was a tad sleazy... Still, we'd learned how to say "two waters" in Swahili, which is an improvement on the zero words we had. Then it was beers, pizza, and a far too late night considering that we had to get up at 4.45 to ensure we got the bus in time the next morning... ugh. And more on that journey in the next post...
*Weird how being back where British English is predominantly spoken so quickly changes my thought processes, including how I think of dates. .
Friday, July 18, 2008
Think of a number...
I've decided to give myself a ten minute break in which I have to think of ten positive things about this whole bar experience. Which, believe me, is not easy. Here's what I've come up with:
- I am now watching less than 10 hours of tv a week. Because I barely watch an hourlong thing when I get home at night. [Negative = not watching Six Feet Under or any Daily Shows at the mo - dammit. I LIKE tv. Still.]
- I have rediscovered classical music. While the downside is that I'm not listening to any of the fantastic new (and newish) albums I have recently purchased (Neon Neon, New Young Pony Club, MGMT), I have been rediscovering the joys of classical music as it is, apparently, the only suitable music for memorization. Elgar and Fauré are particular favourites. Recommendations for suitable, non-jaunty things gratefully received.
- Improved snacking. You see, because I am stuck sat on my backside all the time I can't be eating peanut m&ms whenever I feel like it. So anything low-fat and high-fibre to keep me full is consumed. Balancing consideration: level of crunchiness. Sadly, on my table in the library today are only people without headphones / earplugs, so the baby carrots are out right now.
- Resumption of detective novel obsession.
- Gym time? I am going 4-5 times a week because of the aforementioned arse-sitting.
- Reduced consumption of alcohol. Some friends have renounced the evil stuff completely, but I just can't face that. So it's one light beer (with lime) per night.
- I know now that I cannot write your will for you and expect a payout. So I'll forego the will-drafting to receive the cash, methinks.
- The return of fishwatch.
- Gratitude - for time after this misery, for the time up until now. That's it.
- TOH is an absolute sweetheart.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
'Til Death
I listened to a really interesting podcast from PBS this morning - a special, online edition of the newshour about gay marriage from the perspective of two constitutional law scholars.
What really got to me this morning was the blithe assumption that marriage has always been this wonderful institution that benefited all concerned. What really interests me is that every proponent of marriage - for gay or for only heterosexual only - I've heard thus far has been a man. Every time there's a discussion, there's been no concept of a feminist input - that marriage hasn't always been that great for women, that they only belonged to husbands or fathers, that it was a method of transportation of property and titles between men. Not that it is that now predominantly like that in the US or Britain, but it intrigues me given this is the ground we're debating, with gay marriage opponents citing its history and traditional place in society ("that's how it always has been") as the reason why it cannot be expanded to gay couples. Why, therefore, do we never hear a feminist riposte regarding its often oppressive effects on women throughout history?
Anyhoo, my favourite moment in the podcast is when Professor Cruz slaps down Eastman for making the assumption that bisexuals would have to marry one of each sex. I love the "slippery slope" argument that Scalia has made - that somehow bestiality, incest and paedophilia are the same thing as homosexuality. Brilliant. Arseholes.
What really got to me this morning was the blithe assumption that marriage has always been this wonderful institution that benefited all concerned. What really interests me is that every proponent of marriage - for gay or for only heterosexual only - I've heard thus far has been a man. Every time there's a discussion, there's been no concept of a feminist input - that marriage hasn't always been that great for women, that they only belonged to husbands or fathers, that it was a method of transportation of property and titles between men. Not that it is that now predominantly like that in the US or Britain, but it intrigues me given this is the ground we're debating, with gay marriage opponents citing its history and traditional place in society ("that's how it always has been") as the reason why it cannot be expanded to gay couples. Why, therefore, do we never hear a feminist riposte regarding its often oppressive effects on women throughout history?
Anyhoo, my favourite moment in the podcast is when Professor Cruz slaps down Eastman for making the assumption that bisexuals would have to marry one of each sex. I love the "slippery slope" argument that Scalia has made - that somehow bestiality, incest and paedophilia are the same thing as homosexuality. Brilliant. Arseholes.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Substitute
I am grumpy, stressed and miserable with Bar/Bri. Fortunately there is relief out there - someone documenting this experience, so I know I am not alone, and he does it in a far funnier and wittier way than I could possibly, ever. Hopefully this post will stop me moaning about it too much.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Shop Talk
I was toying with the concept of blogging the Bar course I'm on. Not just its miseries, but its interesting points, things I'm learning about the Law that I just didn't know (it really is remarkable that after three years and nearly $120,000 in tuition just how much practical and useful stuff about which I do not have an inkling).
But, I decided, that's a tad self-indulgent, particularly as it'd be one post after another regarding my utter hatred of the situation and how hard it is for me to be somewhere by 8.30 every morning. Ugh.
Instead, it's another post about how NY Mag is pushing my buttons, and not in a good way. This week's edition had a major feature about the fallout from Spitzergate, and the large numbers of men that cheat on their wives. I need to re-read it, but the main argument was that current morality on monogamous marriages hasn't caught up with our evolving concepts of sexual morality - experimentation, acceptability of gay relationships, single motherhood, lack of marriage all together. It seemed to be some bloke basically saying he was too scared to tell his wife he wanted to sleep with other people, and he just couldn't help himself, so we should give him a green light. It's unrealistic to expect people to be faithful for life and it doesn't really hurt anyone, just like being gay or sleeping with people before marriage.
Unsurrisingly, there were a couple of things that I really took issue with that undercut what he's saying entirely.
First, the argument that infidelity causes no harm is simply not true physically, even if it's not true or arguable or we should change how we view it morally or emotionally. Syphilis rates increased 60% between 2001 and 2006 in the USA; as did chlamydia, and only gonorrhea dropped. HIV is the biggest killer of women of ages 15-44 in NYC. Given chlamydia's effects on fertility, this is clearly not a case of no effect or harm, necessarily, unless all the unfaithful people are using condoms, which somehow, I doubt... so he should have at least acknowledged that.
Second, he talks about all these poor husbands who aren't getting any sex from their wives, who have simply lost interest. Not once did he posit that perhaps the women are bored of their relationships, too. Not once did he suggest that maybe women's lack of sex drive could be connected to their husbands' failure to satisfy them or to keep them interested. Chances are, given statistics on infidelity, women are having affairs too. They too want someone to make them feel sexy, attractive, and to have sex that's exciting and new. But that didn't fit into this story about how Spitzer's decision to have sex with prostitutes could be explained by men trapped in sexless marriages.
Third and finally, as pointed out by the RH Reality Check podcast, having sex with prostitutes is NOT the same as having an affair. Yet this story conflated the two. Paying a person to have sex with you is not the same as establishing a relationship with someone else in order to have an affair, regardless of how fleeting that is. The only thing they have in common is that Dr. Laura will blame women for both.
But, I decided, that's a tad self-indulgent, particularly as it'd be one post after another regarding my utter hatred of the situation and how hard it is for me to be somewhere by 8.30 every morning. Ugh.
Instead, it's another post about how NY Mag is pushing my buttons, and not in a good way. This week's edition had a major feature about the fallout from Spitzergate, and the large numbers of men that cheat on their wives. I need to re-read it, but the main argument was that current morality on monogamous marriages hasn't caught up with our evolving concepts of sexual morality - experimentation, acceptability of gay relationships, single motherhood, lack of marriage all together. It seemed to be some bloke basically saying he was too scared to tell his wife he wanted to sleep with other people, and he just couldn't help himself, so we should give him a green light. It's unrealistic to expect people to be faithful for life and it doesn't really hurt anyone, just like being gay or sleeping with people before marriage.
Unsurrisingly, there were a couple of things that I really took issue with that undercut what he's saying entirely.
First, the argument that infidelity causes no harm is simply not true physically, even if it's not true or arguable or we should change how we view it morally or emotionally. Syphilis rates increased 60% between 2001 and 2006 in the USA; as did chlamydia, and only gonorrhea dropped. HIV is the biggest killer of women of ages 15-44 in NYC. Given chlamydia's effects on fertility, this is clearly not a case of no effect or harm, necessarily, unless all the unfaithful people are using condoms, which somehow, I doubt... so he should have at least acknowledged that.
Second, he talks about all these poor husbands who aren't getting any sex from their wives, who have simply lost interest. Not once did he posit that perhaps the women are bored of their relationships, too. Not once did he suggest that maybe women's lack of sex drive could be connected to their husbands' failure to satisfy them or to keep them interested. Chances are, given statistics on infidelity, women are having affairs too. They too want someone to make them feel sexy, attractive, and to have sex that's exciting and new. But that didn't fit into this story about how Spitzer's decision to have sex with prostitutes could be explained by men trapped in sexless marriages.
Third and finally, as pointed out by the RH Reality Check podcast, having sex with prostitutes is NOT the same as having an affair. Yet this story conflated the two. Paying a person to have sex with you is not the same as establishing a relationship with someone else in order to have an affair, regardless of how fleeting that is. The only thing they have in common is that Dr. Laura will blame women for both.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
All My Loving
Sometimes, there's just something in a name. My geography teacher named Ms. Hill, for example. And the plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case from 1967 that struck down miscegenation statutes as unconstitutional. Virginia was but one of sixteen states that banned mixed race marriages. It was a unanimous decision, so rare these days, but this was so frighteningly awful, there was no other choice. Particularly galling was that there was clearly no other motive than the fear of "tainting" of the white race, as it was only banned between whites and "others."
Mrs. Loving died on Friday.
Alabama only officially took their miscegenation statutes off the books in 2000.
When arseholes like Dobbs et al. claim that we should be past this "race" business, then we need to remember stuff like this. Because it is not over, not yet, not by a long shot.
Read the story. It's inspiring. Sad, but inspiring.
Mrs. Loving died on Friday.
Alabama only officially took their miscegenation statutes off the books in 2000.
When arseholes like Dobbs et al. claim that we should be past this "race" business, then we need to remember stuff like this. Because it is not over, not yet, not by a long shot.
Read the story. It's inspiring. Sad, but inspiring.
Monday, March 03, 2008
What Bwings Us Togevva
Mawwage, or, at least, that's what Peter Cook thinks. My own feelings have been discussed here; and yesterday, in the Observer, came a long piece from Hannah Bett about her reasons for rejecting marriage, which she lists as: atheism; feminism; suspicion of the intervention of the state in private matters; and, what seems to be the refusal to close off the possibility of sex and love with other people.
Yet despite the internal recognition I feel on reading this, it appears somewhat... naive? Unrealistic? It's certainly not the full picture. In contrast stands the Guardian article earlier this week which discussed - anecdotally, at least - the large numbers of long-term non-marrying couples who are suddenly tying the knot. While Bett cites, to prove her point, last year having the lowest number of marriages in Britain since 1896, those figures sadly do not cite how long the couple was together before they got married, and there seems to be little empirical data on this. Anecdotally, I suppose my own experiences suggest that people are getting married after building solid platforms - long-term cohabitation, establishing careers. This year alone, of the five weddings of my mates that I know of, three of the couples have been together longer than five years.
Rather than the threshold being the first step, marriage has become the final step to adulthood. And, divorce rates are falling, in my opinion, at least, for the very reasons Bett cites for not getting married - feminism, because women are equals with economic power to such a greater extent that they are entering marriages with equals, and atheism's influence in that people don't think they're going to hell if they try out this relationship before certifying it.
So what to believe? The major problem with long-term cohabitation is the legal architecture that has promoted marriage for centuries - the shoring up of assets, tax breaks, inheritance issues. For centuries, women were utterly unprotected and were not just unable to own property, but were it themselves. Finally, women have some form protection, but the only way to do that would be through marriage. What Bett fails to deal with in her article is the very real worry of what happens to the assets, the children, everything if something goes wrong - be it separation or death. This bizarrely, therefore, reduces marriage to what it always was for many long-term couples - not a proof of romantic love but a pragmatic solution to property. However, I guess the romance for me comes into the notion of protecting your loved ones. So, some progress.
Yet despite the internal recognition I feel on reading this, it appears somewhat... naive? Unrealistic? It's certainly not the full picture. In contrast stands the Guardian article earlier this week which discussed - anecdotally, at least - the large numbers of long-term non-marrying couples who are suddenly tying the knot. While Bett cites, to prove her point, last year having the lowest number of marriages in Britain since 1896, those figures sadly do not cite how long the couple was together before they got married, and there seems to be little empirical data on this. Anecdotally, I suppose my own experiences suggest that people are getting married after building solid platforms - long-term cohabitation, establishing careers. This year alone, of the five weddings of my mates that I know of, three of the couples have been together longer than five years.
Rather than the threshold being the first step, marriage has become the final step to adulthood. And, divorce rates are falling, in my opinion, at least, for the very reasons Bett cites for not getting married - feminism, because women are equals with economic power to such a greater extent that they are entering marriages with equals, and atheism's influence in that people don't think they're going to hell if they try out this relationship before certifying it.
So what to believe? The major problem with long-term cohabitation is the legal architecture that has promoted marriage for centuries - the shoring up of assets, tax breaks, inheritance issues. For centuries, women were utterly unprotected and were not just unable to own property, but were it themselves. Finally, women have some form protection, but the only way to do that would be through marriage. What Bett fails to deal with in her article is the very real worry of what happens to the assets, the children, everything if something goes wrong - be it separation or death. This bizarrely, therefore, reduces marriage to what it always was for many long-term couples - not a proof of romantic love but a pragmatic solution to property. However, I guess the romance for me comes into the notion of protecting your loved ones. So, some progress.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Watersports
SPOILER ALERT: Of my very few readers, I know one hasn't read To Kill a Mockingbird and I also know he plans to read it soon. So, sweetheart, maybe you should skip this first paragraph. Other SPOILER: this is self-righteousness incarnate, so mum, please ignore the tone!
I've just finished re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird. There, the vague moral victory in the court case is that Atticus makes them doubt that a guilty plea is right. This is Alabama, in the 1930s, all too believable.
Therefore, this makes a Mississippi Supreme Court's decision in 1922 seem even more remarkable, particularly in light of Attorney General Mukasey's all too predictable sanction of waterboarding techniques. Why on earth anyone thought he'd be different from Gonzales, I really don't know. Oh, yes he is different - he doesn't come across as quite so slimy.
A (nerdy, clearly) law type has uncovered White v. State, which was a case whereby a young black man confessed to the murder of a white shopowner. Only problem - he was tortured. Well, not if you're Michael Mukasey, but yes if you're the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Just think about it - 1922, a Mississippi court orders a retrial because the confession of a black man was obtained under torture by white men. Having just seen the Kara Walker exhibition at the Whitney, I understand a little more deeply (although confusedly, it must be said) the swirling, depthless hatred and misunderstanding and misery of relationships between white and black throughout American history. Nonetheless, despite that, the Court was able to distinguish between what was right and wrong in this instance. I'll give you a few excerpts (emphases are all mine):
And I'll leave you with my favourite sentence from the judgment:
I've just finished re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird. There, the vague moral victory in the court case is that Atticus makes them doubt that a guilty plea is right. This is Alabama, in the 1930s, all too believable.
Therefore, this makes a Mississippi Supreme Court's decision in 1922 seem even more remarkable, particularly in light of Attorney General Mukasey's all too predictable sanction of waterboarding techniques. Why on earth anyone thought he'd be different from Gonzales, I really don't know. Oh, yes he is different - he doesn't come across as quite so slimy.
A (nerdy, clearly) law type has uncovered White v. State, which was a case whereby a young black man confessed to the murder of a white shopowner. Only problem - he was tortured. Well, not if you're Michael Mukasey, but yes if you're the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Just think about it - 1922, a Mississippi court orders a retrial because the confession of a black man was obtained under torture by white men. Having just seen the Kara Walker exhibition at the Whitney, I understand a little more deeply (although confusedly, it must be said) the swirling, depthless hatred and misunderstanding and misery of relationships between white and black throughout American history. Nonetheless, despite that, the Court was able to distinguish between what was right and wrong in this instance. I'll give you a few excerpts (emphases are all mine):
the hands of appellant were tied behind him, he was laid upon the floor upon his back, and, while some of the men stood upon his feet, Gilbert, a very heavy man, stood with one foot entirely upon appellant's breast, and the other foot entirely upon his neck. While in that position what is described as the “water cure” was administered to him in an effort to extort a confession as to where the money was hidden which was supposed to have been taken from the dead man. The “water cure” appears to have consisted of pouring water from a dipper into the nose of appellant, so as to strangle him, thus causing pain and horror, for the purpose of forcing a confession. Under these barbarous circumstances the appellant readily confessed that he knew where the money was, and told them that it was out at the “dredge ditch.” They then took the appellant to the dredge ditch to find the money, but there was no money found there or anywhere else so far as this record shows.So in a nutshell: they tortured him AND it failed to provide the required information.
And I'll leave you with my favourite sentence from the judgment:
Confessions induced by fear, though not aroused by spoken threats, are nevertheless involuntary, because the fear which takes away, the freedom may arise solely from the conditions and circumstances surrounding the confessor.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Shoot 'Em Up
This week I have used my powers, such as they are, for good. No, really.
For those who are not familiar with the evils of law citations, last year I spent a great deal of time in the library doing something known as bluebooking. You check people's cites, make sure the content is accurate, and that it follows the right format. There are many, many, many rules. It sucked the life out of me last year, but undoubtedly helped me get a job, so, you know, not too many grumbles.
It also came in handy when I helped citecheck an amicus brief for a Supreme Court case. No, seriously. My red scribblings on a piece of paper have formatted and checked a Supreme Court brief for content. Ulp. ULP. The case is going to be argued very soon, this term, and supports petitioners' contentions that the three-injection method of execution is cruel & unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This is based on a lot of scholarship of a prof at my school, whose latest article (The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Dismantled the Death Penalty) is briefed here and is excellent. It really does explain the utter lack of research or reason behind the lethal injection - except that it makes people feel more comfortable about the death penalty. Another prof had an interesting take on this yesterday, arguing that if society is going to have a death penalty, it shouldn't hide behind ideas of humaneness and false reassurances that the person doesn't suffer or this isn't a violent taking of life. Instead, use a firing squad. Of course, having read that brief I could have told him that both Idaho and Utah actually do have firing squad options. Seriously.
While I see where he's coming from, I like this continual undermining of excuses and reasons for certain methods of the death penalty - I'm hopeful, although not too much, that it will eventually be undermined entirely. It's not soon enough, obviously, but it may bring about a sea change in what people view as acceptable punishment.
For those who are not familiar with the evils of law citations, last year I spent a great deal of time in the library doing something known as bluebooking. You check people's cites, make sure the content is accurate, and that it follows the right format. There are many, many, many rules. It sucked the life out of me last year, but undoubtedly helped me get a job, so, you know, not too many grumbles.
It also came in handy when I helped citecheck an amicus brief for a Supreme Court case. No, seriously. My red scribblings on a piece of paper have formatted and checked a Supreme Court brief for content. Ulp. ULP. The case is going to be argued very soon, this term, and supports petitioners' contentions that the three-injection method of execution is cruel & unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This is based on a lot of scholarship of a prof at my school, whose latest article (The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Dismantled the Death Penalty) is briefed here and is excellent. It really does explain the utter lack of research or reason behind the lethal injection - except that it makes people feel more comfortable about the death penalty. Another prof had an interesting take on this yesterday, arguing that if society is going to have a death penalty, it shouldn't hide behind ideas of humaneness and false reassurances that the person doesn't suffer or this isn't a violent taking of life. Instead, use a firing squad. Of course, having read that brief I could have told him that both Idaho and Utah actually do have firing squad options. Seriously.
While I see where he's coming from, I like this continual undermining of excuses and reasons for certain methods of the death penalty - I'm hopeful, although not too much, that it will eventually be undermined entirely. It's not soon enough, obviously, but it may bring about a sea change in what people view as acceptable punishment.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Safe at Home?
UPDATE: Over half of all doctors don't support the UK's abortion laws. But that doesn't mean anything bad. In fact, what they oppose is the two doctor requirement - that is, most think that it should be enough for one doctor to approve an abortion. Sanity. In comparison to the below, anyway.
I've just been catching up on The F-Word - sorry, prof, but securities regulations is not THAT interesting and I have been paying attention for forty minutes or so without blogging - and I have just read this which is deeply depressing.
The abortion debate here is so impassioned, so polarised (despite repeat surveys showing that a majority of Americans support a woman's right to have an abortion) that home seems distantly quaint and safe. And yet, and yet, it's doing its best to undermine that right now with the people allowed to testify on an enquiry looking into the legal status of abortion (not to make it illegal, but they are looking into the 24 week limit and so forth):
I've just been catching up on The F-Word - sorry, prof, but securities regulations is not THAT interesting and I have been paying attention for forty minutes or so without blogging - and I have just read this which is deeply depressing.
The abortion debate here is so impassioned, so polarised (despite repeat surveys showing that a majority of Americans support a woman's right to have an abortion) that home seems distantly quaint and safe. And yet, and yet, it's doing its best to undermine that right now with the people allowed to testify on an enquiry looking into the legal status of abortion (not to make it illegal, but they are looking into the 24 week limit and so forth):
The enquiry has solicited evidence from doctors and medical associations in the lead up to the enquiry, which is standard procedure. This morning, however, it emerged that the committee clerk has had to take the “unusual step” of writing to all individuals who have submitted evidence to the enquiry and asking them to disclose all of their affiliations. The reason this step has been taken is that it has emerged that at least eight of the private submissions have come from medical professionals who have not disclosed their affiliation with Christian groups opposed to abortion. Six of those are members or activists of Christian Medical Fellowship.
For reference, the CMF have made an organisational submission to the enquiry which suggests that:
- the 24-week limit should be reviewed;
- the limit for abortion for foetal abnormality should be no higher than the general limit;
- “any change in the law which increases abortion totals should be resisted”;
- the requirement for permission to abort from two doctors should remain; and
- there is “overwhelming evidence that abortion causes significant rates of serious mental health problems”.
They further note that they regret that the committee will not consider ethical or moral issues associated with time limits and that they are “reluctantly restricting ourselves to the science in this submission”. So it’s pretty clear where their opinions lie. The CWF is an anti-abortion group.
Now we’re told that at least 6 of the (about 20) individual submissions are members of this group, and that a further two are members of groups likely to hold similar opinions.
Ugh, ye gods. Arseholes. ARSEHOLES - how can they think it's ok to have over a quarter of these "experts" to all be members of a publicly pronounced opposition group to abortion rights?
Friday, October 05, 2007
Misplaced Priorities
There's so much going on right now that I should be processing, mentally, and then blogging on, such as: the House bill that would bring criminal liability to contractors in Iraq; the speech by Harold Koh at my school yesterday, which was exciting, inspiring, funny and wonderful, and has prompted me to restart writing my international law thesis (that nearly KILLED me last year - so all things in moderation); and the birth of a daughter to one of my very best friends, which is a watershed in my life, let alone hers.
Instead, however, I am getting increasingly (and quite embarrasingly) overexcited about the prospect of seeing LCD Soundsystem tomorrow. I can't quite believe it's nearly here. All other thoughts are therefore blown from my brain and I can't think straight. Tragic, but true.
Instead, however, I am getting increasingly (and quite embarrasingly) overexcited about the prospect of seeing LCD Soundsystem tomorrow. I can't quite believe it's nearly here. All other thoughts are therefore blown from my brain and I can't think straight. Tragic, but true.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Courting Disaster
I went to court today on a pro bono case. Obviously, the details are not for public consumption.
However, I will again share my thoughts on what a terrifying experience it is. As a basically law-abiding citizen* I am petrified by going to court.
Of course, these things are correlated but perhaps in different ways. Either it's a genuinely terrifying thing, and hence I'm scared, despite my good behaviour; or, alternatively, I am a good citizen because I'm terrified in the first place.
Having read the horrific NY Times series on New York judges,** and having taken the most wonderful Anti-Discrimination Law class, I can see that some people, and particularly some groups of people, are disengaged and disconnected from the system because it does not take their concerns, worries and lives seriously enough. I honestly believe that's true. Which is sad, because I think that being a judge - other than time management and having to be very careful about the people you choose to have around you - would be an extraordinarily interesting post in which you could really make a positive difference in someone's life.
DISCLAIMER: The judge this morning was sharp and smart; there are some good ones out there, definitely. However, what worries me is the appointment system and the abuse of power that does take place.
* I have been known to jaywalk, not present my ID when in drinking establishments, and surreptitiously sneak a beer in the open air.
** If you have Times Select and fancy a scary bedtime story, I suggest you find it.
However, I will again share my thoughts on what a terrifying experience it is. As a basically law-abiding citizen* I am petrified by going to court.
Of course, these things are correlated but perhaps in different ways. Either it's a genuinely terrifying thing, and hence I'm scared, despite my good behaviour; or, alternatively, I am a good citizen because I'm terrified in the first place.
Having read the horrific NY Times series on New York judges,** and having taken the most wonderful Anti-Discrimination Law class, I can see that some people, and particularly some groups of people, are disengaged and disconnected from the system because it does not take their concerns, worries and lives seriously enough. I honestly believe that's true. Which is sad, because I think that being a judge - other than time management and having to be very careful about the people you choose to have around you - would be an extraordinarily interesting post in which you could really make a positive difference in someone's life.
DISCLAIMER: The judge this morning was sharp and smart; there are some good ones out there, definitely. However, what worries me is the appointment system and the abuse of power that does take place.
* I have been known to jaywalk, not present my ID when in drinking establishments, and surreptitiously sneak a beer in the open air.
** If you have Times Select and fancy a scary bedtime story, I suggest you find it.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Privileged
I survived. Just about. It was great - an excuse to eat a lot and watch fireworks which is, essentially, my idea of a perfect day. And only a few snide comments - from both sides which shows just how far anglo-american relations have come. Indeed.
Anyway, the NY Times has a fabulous editorial today about the Supreme Court. I am going to try for more levity in the next few posts, so less of the law and ranting, but this was definitely worth mentioning. Read it while you still can - I think it will only be up for a week. The general gist, however, is below:
Anyway, the NY Times has a fabulous editorial today about the Supreme Court. I am going to try for more levity in the next few posts, so less of the law and ranting, but this was definitely worth mentioning. Read it while you still can - I think it will only be up for a week. The general gist, however, is below:
It has been decades since the most privileged
members of society — corporations, the wealthy, white people who want to attend school with other whites — have had such a successful Supreme Court term.
UPDATE: Excitingly, I just found this from the fab feminist law profs: The House has already got before it, and passed through Committee, a law to overturn Ledbetter. Which is bloody brilliant news indeed. For a very good assessment of that utterly boswellox opinion, written by the gitlike Alito, read this. Ledbetter stood for the proposition that if you don't know you're being screwed over by your boss because you're a woman, or black, or a Rastafarian, tough luck - you only have six months to sue from the time your boss started doing it. Nice work, Alito. Luckily, the House is saying up yours, matey. That's made my day. Even more than the arrival of the replacement iPod. Sort of.
So less of the Supremes, more about fun stuff. Honestly. Although I cannot let this one go. So, the idiot Bishop of Carlisle has said that the gay marriage act is why the UK has been flooded in the past couple of weeks. That was quite exciting, and shows that really, we have our own brand of crazy churchfolk just as much as a nation with Pat Robertson (whose real name is Marion - who knew?).
Friday, June 29, 2007
ps
Last one today, I promise.
I have not been referring to the Supreme Court because it pains me, hugely.
Here are some eloquent discussions on the school integration matter, particularly by BitchPhD - that was a wonderful post. Note, this decision is anti-integration. It's not about "race," it's about not caring about race.
I have not been referring to the Supreme Court because it pains me, hugely.
Here are some eloquent discussions on the school integration matter, particularly by BitchPhD - that was a wonderful post. Note, this decision is anti-integration. It's not about "race," it's about not caring about race.
- Bitch, Phd - Oh, God
- Lawyers, Guns and Money - a roundup of others' thoughts
- Lawyers, Guns and Money - some thoughts of their own
- Justice Stevens' thoughts
It's too depressing for words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
