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.

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.

Blogorrhoea

Over the summer I really got into my political blogs, and that was echoed in my I read links on the right. However, things have changed. I am tired of being angry, ranting; I wanted to write about other things: more frivol & whimsy, less despair. So I really got into my friends' blogs again, fuming when they dared to have lives that meant no updates for a couple of days.

Generally, I read very few, now. I always read feministing; lawyers, guns & money (read today's post on CJ Rehnquist, the fascist, racist evil git, it's excellent); and Bitch, PhD (both her personal site and at suicide girls). However, the one that I really treasure right now is unsprung. I don't quite know why, but I think this post on the falling divorce rate exemplifies the thoughtful, intelligent and interesting writing. The post points out that feminism, rather than being to blame for the decline in marriages, is in fact responsible for marriages lasting longer and more often. It's an excellent post.

But my love for unsprung is based on more than just this post; it's the whole ethos behind the site. I love the idea of a pro-choice, pro-women, pro-family website - that is, the idea that these things actually follow on from each other, rather than allowing the right to co-opt the "family values" issue and dictate that progressive politics are automatically anti-family. It feels as if we've allowed Republicans and the Christian right to frame and define the debate and its terms for far too long. More sites as good as this would help.

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:

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?).

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.

• 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.

I Know It When I See It

The last few weeks continue in the theme of Gonzales v. Carhart, in that the Supreme Court is pouring out depressing 5-4 decisions that feature the five right wingers of Gonzales overcoming, and failing to persuade, the four liberals. Such beauties include Ledbetter, which somehow came to the conclusion that if you do not file within six months of your discrimination, even if you do not know you're being discriminated against, you have no case. Or today's ruling that enables the prosecuting attorneys to easily remove people who have a problem with the death penalty, or, indeed, on the basis of race. Kennedy has simply proved himself to be no friend of women, or the vulnerable, whatsoever. Good to see that Christian conscience and concern for the meek / humble coming through there.

Anyway, given the genuine horrors of the Supreme Court right now, it's time to look elsewhere. And in that vein, there was an interesting ruling in a Circuit Court* today. The Second Circuit--which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont--ruled that so-called "fleeting expletives" do not trigger a mandatory fine from the FCC - if the government uses the same language. Which is a good thing, sort of. Fleeting expletives are something that Studio 60 was preaching about earlier in the season--heavy handedly, obviously, but valid intention. However, I worry that this relies on the foul mouths of the government being heard... anyway, this is something I really do believe is important: Bad language will not do people damage. Why not instead look at crap like The Next Search for a Pussycat Doll or, indeed, the content of most of MTV, and think about the awful messages sent out about women and their bodies and what is important about them?

Not that I am suggesting the CW11 gets fined for that boswellox, but if we're talking about the role of television in society, and whether it should shape or reflect our culture, if shaping is important then we should really be investing in decent, clever television that is nowhere near as degrading as not just the CW11, but all those godawful, stupid sitcoms where there is a slob of a guy with an amazing looking woman but they are VAPID and all the woman possibly could want is to be married at home with kids. Yes, Patricia Heaton, I'm talking to you.

* Quick brief for non-law school types: from lowest to highest it goes District (where the trial takes place), then Circuit (the Courts of Appeal) and then Supreme Court).

Mannish Hands

One of the wonderful classes I'm taking this semester is Anti-Discrimination Law. It's with an extraordinarily gifted and intelligent professor, and I am learning a lot about how I view society's structure. I possibly have taken it on too much, at least from the perspective of the people who have borne the wrath I have expressed recently due to indignities, stigma and discrimination. Not that I have indignant white middle-class girl's rage, or anything.

Anyway, this is all leading up to the test I just did with my writing at this website. Sent to me by the ever-reliable (and ever-procrastinating, hence a woman after my own heart) WUB, she revealed that the test thought her writing was done by a man. When I entered my blog text, it thought I was a woman, just about. However, interestingly, every piece of legal writing I did was overwhelmingly "male" - with a male:female word ratio of nearly 2:1. This is intriguing, given that so many qualities for "good lawyering" are considered to be masculine - logic, single-mindedness, adversarial bearing (i.e. competitive bastard disease, which I have in spades). As such, one hundred and twenty four years ago Justice Bradley wrote:

It certainly cannot be affirmed, as an historical fact, that this [right to practice law] has ever been established as one of the fundamental privileges and immunities of the sex. On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits if for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interests and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. One of these is, that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counsellor.

It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.

The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman's advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. In the nature of things it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the State; and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex.

Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130, 139 (1873).

This was quoted, in part, by Justice Ginsburg in her dissent this week to the legal disgrace that is Gonzales v. Carhart. That was to illustrate that paternalism towards women on the basis of their is an abhorrent and outdated thing, an abomination, a monstrosity. And so it all links back, and is connected, paternalism and sexism and gender stereotyping and the denial of abortion rights. But I was particularly interested because, according to this website, successful legal argument (in that it comes from papers I have written with reasonable modica of success) is inherently masculine.

And that gave me pause, today.

Unpredictable

For those of you who have been somewhat surprised at the lack of discussion of Gonzales v. Carhart on these pages, it is due to my sheer rage this week. As I pointed out yesterday to friends, if I had Jedi powers (midi-chlorians, obviously) then this would be the point where I become Darth Vader. The rage is strong with this one.

Plus, there are far more people who can articulate this eloquently, legally, analytically and just better than I...

• Cass Sunstein on why Justice Ginsburg is right
• Jill Fillipovic on why a chilling wind is blowing our way
• Lynn Harris on how the wrong people are now empowered
• Some random dude on why this is wrong
• And, most starkly: Who made this decision for you?

There was an article by Stanley Fish a couple of weeks ago that pointed out that the true measure of governance is who the governing executive puts into positions of power that affect our everyday lives. And now we understand why they vote for Bush, and we should have done everything in our power to overcome that.

Probably Just Turning

For quite a while now, I have thought that Barack Obama is the best thing to happen to US politics since... not sure what - not exactly knowledgeable on the stuff. But he is articulate, interesting, intelligent and always seems to get to the crux of the matter. I'd forgotten just how much I love him until this morning, I decided to listen to some of his old podcasts I have stored up...

This was the first one I listened to and it reminded me a) just why Barack is THE MAN and b) just why Alito's nomination and subsequent election to the Supreme Court was such a disaster, not just for us pro-choice people, but for all liberals and those who aren't on the extreme right. Disaster. Roberts, well, wasn't going to be avoided. But this was a... disaster is the only word.

I was going to write about my favourite things about Ticoland, but Barack has taken over all thoughts... will think more and then write more.

PLUS: I now absolutely have to buy a kickarse suit and haircut in order to make sure that I ace the interviews I have lined up for interview week at Fordham. Not that I'm even sure I want them, yet. But you never know...