Political Speak in Law School

One thing has consistently bothered me in law school......the assumption by students and faculty that all students subscribe to a progressive, liberal ideology. This has been frusterating for me. And, my eyes are truly open to the fact that law school is certainly not diverse in the area of politics---or at least not tolerant to different political ideas.

I survived the first year with faculty taking pot shots at President Bush. I listened to student after student say many things, often not grounded in fact, about the Administration. Now, I need to reveal before I go further that I am a registered independent who has leaned Republican, but have voted Democrated. I tend to be very conservative on fiscal issues, but fairly moderate to liberal on social issues. I have not agreed with every policy of the Bush Administration and have often dispaired that the powers of the executive branch have been far to expansive under this President.

However, when I have had to try and speak up, I was belittled. This year, the common denominator seems to be the assumption that we must all be voting for Obama. I really don't know who I will vote for. I have to decide whose policies I fear the most, because I am not satisfied that either man can provide the decisive leadership the US will need in the coming years. However, what I cannot abide by is the ugly jokes and belitting that I have heard in reference to Sarah Palin. When you ask these students what they know about Sarah, it is little more that what was provided by the Huffington Post.

I am not saying that Palin is perfect, or that I do not have concerns. But to treat her as if she is a stupid booble head bimbo. I hate this gender bias and I hate that educated articulate people would perpetuate this..........

I guess what is disappointing is that there seems to be a lack of tolerance. There also seems to be a large assumption that all law students must think politically the same. We don't. AND, I would go as far to argue that being a simple party hack and voting party lines is scary to say the least. Neither party is perfect. And in the last month, we have seen that both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the mess that our economy is in. The Dems for turning a blind eye, and the Repubs for spending like there was no tomorrow. We, as future lawyers, should be smart enough to embrace debate on these views and to not buy into ideology that is divisive.

Frivolous lawsuit alert!

Below is a link to a story about how a Obama supporter in Oklahoma City is suing McCain for causing her mental anguish. She alleges that McCain/Palin has "incited violence against" Obama and this has caused her great mental distress. She claims to be in fear the the presidential's candidates life.

I could not find that complaint because it was just filed today, so presumably, it has not made it's way through the system. But think about this? McCain/Palin have not made any statements that incite violence or constitute hate speech. It is well documented that supporters have made unappropriate comments at rallies, but both candidates have admonished these people. What else can they do?

Not to mention, if this was true, perhaps I should institute a lawsuit against Oliver Stone for defamation against W and claim that his efforts have caused me great anguish and grave mental distress.

What I want to know is what irresponsible lawyer filed this suit? There is no cause of action here. Ms. Green has suffered no physical harm. McCain/Palin made no remarks. And it is a well stated rule in law that a third party can not be held liable for the tortious or criminal acts of another [minus conspiracy or felony murder]. The lawyer ought to be sanctioned.

Minus that---quick, someone get this woman some meds! FED EX, where are you when we need you?

Ridiculous!

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/843091.html

NYC: Free speech and the classroom

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081010/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_buttons

Above is a link to a story I saw on the news this morning. The school board in NYC has told teachers that they cannot wear Obama/Biden pins in the classroom. Teachers, through their labor union, has initiated a law suit claiming that the policy violates their free speech.

I find with this story, two of my views diametrically opposed. First, one has to understand that speech is not absolute and there are limitations. Having said this, because these pins are likely to count as "political" speech and is one of the most protected forms of speech. I am usually pretty pro-speech. I may not like it, but we all have a right to say our piece.

However, I think that this actually goes too far. Why, one might ask? Let me explain. What is the point of wearing a pin into a classroom full of students that cannot vote anyway? Why should personal opinions about elections be able to enter the classroom? I guess I believe that there are two topics that should remain taboo in the classroom: religion and politics. Both subjects can be highly contentious. Both imply alot about a persons core beliefs and morals. I do not believe that a sign of political support should make it's way in the classroom.

Lawyering at home....

I often wonder how much of my law school experience comes home with me. No kidding, the other night I grounded my daughter. She was grounded from playing outside for three nights. On the third night she began to beg, "Mom, please let me just go outside!" No, I say. "I'll pay you to go outside." No, I say, you can't pay your way out of jail. "Yes mom, you can. It's called a bail bond." I tried not to laugh, I really did. I had to explain that her sentence had already been imposed upon her and she could not buy her way out. That this too was against the law, even mommy law. She argued. I had to tell her she was going to get sentenced again. She said, "Why?" I said for trying to bribe a mommy official. She shut up.

Thinking like a lawyer

They [Prof S, they = you law school professors] warn student in law school that the student will "think like a lawyer." I admit to wondering instantly what does that mean? I struggled through the first year only to be thankful that I could still think at all. And then...........I realize....

1. I will begin to catagorize statements I hear out of my courtroom as to whether they are hearsay. For instance, a friend might want to tell me what another friend said about me (in normal land this is gossip, or even perhaps libel/slander) and I will say, Objection, hearsay. Well, I might not say it out loud, but I am beginning to think it through in my head. I am catagorizing, was that an out of court statement asserted for the proof the truth therein?

2. Cross examination makes it way to my courtroom (oops, I meant my home). "Mom, Walker is being mean to me!" To which I set my daughter down, under a spot light and the drill begins......"Mean is so ambigious. Define mean." Oh, he called you a name. What name was that? Were there any witnesses to his alledged name-calling? Did you do anything to provoke the alleged incident? All this while her eyes are growing bigger, rounder, and absolutely more blank looking. And you wonder, is that hearsay, or is there some exception to the rule.

3. In my courtroom, I rule. Yes, this is right. I interpret the law. This means that my daughter, while she can certainly proffer a nice, reasoned argument to advocate for herself, I and I alone decide the outcome. No jury allowed in my courtroom. And darn it all, when I ask a question or make a statement, do not, I repeat do not, answer my question with a question. Especially the word why. This is my courtroom, I get to talk.

4. It's political season. Normally I am excited at this prospect, but as the candidates and parties yak at me I want to yell at them: Counsel, where's the merit? Where are the facts! This court deals with facts, not speculation. Give me substanitive issues here. Followed by: Stop leading the witness! Followed by: Liar, you just committed fraud, misrepresentation, and perhaps even inducement. And then I want to sit the candidates down and explain this little piece of paper to them called the Constitution and define to them what their powers as the President would be versus the power that they held in the Congress. AGH.

So, it's true. The lense that I view the world with is forever changed. Whether for the good or the bad, I guess that all depends on who you pose that question to.

Phew, glad I got that out of my system.......................

Bailout Fails......Saga Continues

When the votes came down, I have to say I was shocked. The bailout failed. It seems that "we the people" are calling our congressional reps and making it clear that because their seats are all up for grabs every 2 years, they better be voting it down-----and many did.

What I find fascinating was the voting breakdown in the state of Oregon. Oregon has 5 Congressional seats. No surprise that Congresswoman Hooley voted for the bailout. 1) She is a true party woman; 2) she is not running for re-election. Wu, DeFazio, and Blumeanour voted against the bailout. This shocked me. These reps are solid party hacks and usually vote party lines. So what gives here? None of these men have any real competition. I am still trying to puzzle this one out.

Greg Walden is a Republican and voted for the bailout. There could be many reasons for this, but I do admit to a bit of confusion on this vote as well. However, at a guess, he has been in this seat since 1992, and someone in the party pulled in a favor. Likely he has no real competition either for his seat, and so it was expedient (in other words, perhaps someone now owes him a favor) and of no consequence.

I did about lose my lunch when watching Madame Speaker pointing the evil finger at the Administration. (Lady, do you know how to zip it?----Obviously the answer is no!) What bothers me the most is that Congress is responsible for this current crisis, not the President. Congress should have been passing oversight rules. Congress should have been insuring there was oversight on the lending institutions. Congress should have been doing alot of things, instead the Dems have blamed the Pres, and the Republicans have let them and then stood back and tried to stay clear of the stink fumes so as not to infect them. Well Madame Speaker, you have been in charge of making laws and allocating oversight for two years now and have sat on your thumb. Do not go shifting the blame. Buck it up, admit it, and play nice. This could have been the making of you. Now you look like a party hack and your nice, cushy Speaker gig could be up if your buddies lose confidence in your ability. Negotiation 101: Don't bite the hand that feeds you before you get your food.

Hitting "The Wall"

This week, I hit the preverbile wall. What is "the wall" one might ask? It is when your body, mind, and spirit cannot handle one more new thought, one more stressor, or one more unexpected happening. Unfortunately, it is not good that the wall came so early in the semester.

10 days ago, I woke up and was just plain tired. My daughter was sick. So, I called into work (since I did not have classes) and we slept---almost 24 hours straight!!!! Saturday was no better, and on Sunday, my daughter was running a fever and sick. Monday, I took her to the doctor and she tested positive for strep. Lucky me. By the way, Sunday I woke up with a sore throat. I missed classes on Tuesday, went to work on Wednesday as the walking wounded, and by Thursday I was in the doctor's office.

Maybe it's the fact that I am starting my sixth consecutive year of schooling, I don't know. But I am tired of class. Here's hoping this last week "off" rejuvenates me. 8 more weeks to go before finals.