Jason Samuel as Judge Poser

I'm back. . .

It’s been quite some time since I’ve posted last.  In that time, too much to retell happened.  The shorter version: school began, work did too, both finished, and I graduated.  I plan to move back to New York from Michigan this upcoming Saturday.  My bar review courses begin next Monday. 

Let’s see what happens.

Last Day of Work

Today is my last day of work!  That is until, of course, school begins again, which starts the 28th of this month. 

Summer 2006

It's already summer 2006.  By now, I'm sure, I've lost whatever readership I accumulated.  Contributing to my blog, now, only serves as a cathartic exercise.  This was, after all, a motivating reason for me to blog when I started initially.  To whoever continues to return, or to those who just happen upon my page, stay tuned.  I plan on contributing more, continually throughout the summer months.

So sorry...

In the past few weeks I’ve had to acclimate to my new class schedule, battle a forceful cold, and persevere through a new workout regimen. In the coming weeks I hope to blog more, hopefully making up for the time lost in my inactivity these past few weeks.

 

Keep visiting because there’s more to come, for sure.

Some things I've learned on my recent travels

First, Happy New Year everyone.  As you may have noticed, I haven't been keeping up with posting for reasons which are explainable.  I've been traveling a bit in the last week and have not had access to the Internet.  First, I flew into New York from Detroit.  Second, for Christmas, I left to San Diego.  Third, from there I left for San Francisco to attend a friend's wedding, which did not disappoint.  I returned to San Diego yesterday, and also flew from there back to New York. 

In that time I learned that when a hotel advertises itself as "historic," that's Madison Avenue-talk for old.  Second, Ford did well to get rid of the Escort from its lineup.  Lastly, the Mini Cooper, for all its faults, is a perfect car to have to drive in a city. 

Stay tuned. . .

I have a new schedule

Yesterday was my first day of classes.  This semester I am taking: Professional Responsibility, Business Organizations, Jurisprudence, and Federal Taxation.  I dropped Immigration before the first day of classes because I thought I'd be short on time since I will also be working this semester.

Day One [Monday, August 29, 2005]

• 9:16 a.m. - I wake up.
• 9: 27 a.m. - I get to class [Professional Responsibility] and sit in what I believed was the last remaining seat, which was in the center front.
• 9:30 a.m. - Class begins.

I hope God wasn't telling me anything about being a responsible professional before my professional responsibility class even began.

The rest of my day progressed uneventfully.  Business Organizations began on time at 3:30 p.m., with me seated and prepared.

Day Two [Tuesday, August 30, 2005]

Jurisprudence!!
Federal Taxation!!

The exclamation point for each means opposite things.  Can you guess which one I am excited about?

More to come.

July 22, 2005

I must apologize to my visitors for not posting in the last few days.

Work has gotten busier.  There is a trial going on now and though I haven't had (until this afternoon) any other work responsibilities, observing a trial start to finish is an exhausting experience.  Courtroom drama, the likes of Law and Order or Perry Mason, rarely occurs.  Instead, the proceedings unfold rather practicably, and with very few jaw dropping moments. 

Aside, I've had the pleasure of having discussions with my co-workers on a broad range of topics, including AIDS, contraception, contraception distribution, Judge John Roberts, and Roe v. Wade.  Each discussion is as rewarding as it is disappointing.  We never seem to resolve anything.  Now, of course I never expect my interlocutors to be so easily convinced by my arguments, however, I don't ever expect them to hold so dearly onto their own when I've revealed them to be self-refuting or untenable for some other reason.  This isn't to say anything of the fact that it's often the case that I summarize my arguments syllogistically and get my interlocutors to often accept my premises--but they don't accept the necessary conclusions!

Alas, my summer is almost up.  I'm still trying to enjoy it.

Law School Advice

PG over at De Novo recently posted "The Ten Commandments of Law School Applications."  I have also been corresponding with several people interested in attending law school or are about to begin law school, but through e-mail.  I've redacted those correspondeces to share them with you all, now.

See below the fold.

June 29, 2005 - II

No one could've missed the Supreme Court's release of the ten commandment cases, Van Orden [PDF] and McCreary [PDF], the blogosphere is buzzing with commentary.  Here's an example: SCOTUS Discussion.  I promise to write something on these two decisions, keeping with the style and length of my previous posts on this year's cases, but not now. 

Suffice it to say, however, that for all his invective, I thought particularly compelling Justice Scalia's opinion in McCreary.  Justice Souter's opinion in that case should be deemed void for vagueness.  The Court, via Justice Souter, has once again refused to establish any criteria for Establishment Clause cases.  It was even reluctant to discuss the inadequate, but longstanding, Lemon test.  If I may extend the principle of legality to the law generally, please allow me this analogy.  The principle of legality, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary is, "[t]he principle that a person may not be prosecuted under a criminal law that has not been previously published."  This principle is grounded in the idea that in our constitutional democracy, we should know the laws to which we are required to conform.  While I understand that the principle of legality speaks of criminal offenses, I do not believe extending this principle to include the realm of civil law is out of bounds.  What I suggest is that the laws to which we are expected to conform, civil and criminal, should be clear, consistent, and verifiable, fulfilling the "published" requirement of the principle of legality. 

The extent to which the Supreme Court employs vagueness and evades erecting guideposts, or in their simple refusal to approach Constitutional interpretation methodologically, each of us are subjected to their whims.  So, why is clarity, consistency, and verifiability to be encouraged after all?  I believe T. from Ex Post answers this nicely in his response to Professor Leiter's criticisms of originalism.  T. says:

The principle is inherent, though, in writing laws down in the first place--it is the principle that the law (not any given human being, such as a judge or a chancellor or a prince or a Guardian) is the rule. Originalism is all about the rule of law. And it is simply not intelligible to speak of the law ruling when (a) the law is written but (b) the meaning of what was written bears no necessary relationship to its future application. One need not have naive optimism, again, about the ease of interpretation to be committed to the simple notion that in attending to a written text one should attend to what the meanings of the words were when the text was written, in order to understand the thing. And the burden should be on Leiter to explain WHY one would have any commitment to a written Constitution but NOT a commitment to fixed "meanings."

June 29, 2005

Unfortunately my blogging hasn't been regular, as some of you may have noticed.  Of course, this isn't entirely helpful after I've been featured on SCOTUS (via DeNovo) and added to the Maverick Philosopher's blogroll.

The blog's daily hit average, while still modest, is growing.  So, to my visitors (the few of you) please keep coming back.  But also, please do leave comments to my posts, e-mail me suggestions, and if you have a blog of your own, feel free to trackback to my posts. 

Thanks again!