University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog

Palin and Obama revisited

An interesting debate on the merits and demerits of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama has exploded on this blog.  Let us consider the function of a political party and its leader.

Essentially, a political party functions by agglomerating incomplete information which is then filtered through a supposedly coherent ideology and then formulated (quickly and rarely logically) into a normative statement about how the group in question collectively ought to act or not act. David Hume has addressed the problem of the sometimes subtle transition from descriptive to normative (or prescriptive) thought in his Treatise on Human Nature; specifically, he writes:

" [...] the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprized to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."

I had the humble privilege of researching an unnamed politician's biography for the History Dept. of the University of Regina this summer. In so doing, I had the chance to read literally hundreds of articles on Saskatchewan's politics, and I was struck by both the vapidity and short-sightedness of all parties' policy statements and the reactive political environment in which these policies were forged. As to whether they actually conformed to any coherent political philosophy (if there indeed is any to be found), I cannot say, but the formulation of policy was prima facie ad hoc.

How does this relate to the great Obama/Palin debate? Party leaders are usually misguided ideologues, opportunists, or foolhardy devotees to a blind cause: as there is no known system through which utility in human affairs can be objectively measured (or be assured), any attempt at a prescriptive ordering of affairs in accordance with a party's platform by one such foolhardy devotee will not necessarily accrue benefit to his or her constituents.

I am not advocating voting at random, but we ought to be wary of believing that our vote or opinion is doing much good.

"Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for."

- source unknown

Twitter one more time

A state court in Maryland has allowed it.

Mexed Missages

How does the Chronicle of Higher Education do it. You wonder if anyone else was scratching their heads when they released these two articles on the same day:

1) Panelists say White House should do more to make sure everyone gets a college degree

2) Hiring outlooks for college graduates look bleak

Kangaroo Justice

Okay, maybe kangaroo isn't the best term. But why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in New York? Pat Buchanan weighs in.

Sarah Palin on Oprah

So Sarah Palin appeared on Oprah yesterday. Here's the youtube link for those who missed it. Many people have their own opinion on her. Here's mine. In every way she was more qualified for the presidency than Obama. She had far fewer flubs on the campaign trail than Obama. And as we've seen since she has been released from the clutches of campaign organizers, she has her own articulate stances on pressing issues. She is of course never going to win, and while she did her best to avoid answering directly whether she will run in 2012, she really shouldn't. But she is an intriguing figure, whose very presence exposes the turbulent biases lurking within the media, the Republican Party, and the national culture. Anyone else buying her book?

Let's do the Time Warp for the First Time.

There is a new version of user-friendly Linux coming out in April, and it represents a significant step in the right direction for computing.  It is known as Lubuntu.  Lubuntu is based on Lxde and Ubuntu, and it will apparently run quickly on a Pentium III.

Why is this important?

The Pentium III was originally released in 1999.  I think this is an important step because it represents a move away from faster computers that chase unnecessarily complicated and demanding software.  I have used Xubuntu, another light-weight operating system, as a primary operating system for several months at a time, and I have been amazed at its complete functionality and the minimum burden it places on my computer's hardware.

Hopefully, Lubuntu will catch on.

Color Photos from WWI

Color photos from the early part of the last century are rare, so this is just plain neat. (h/t Balko)

John O'Connor RIP

US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's husband passed away a few days ago.

Dr. Seuss on Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure instructors can rejoice now. No longer is their subject the most boring subject in law school (just kidding), for now FSU's Elizabeth Burch has worked the magic of Dr. Seuss onto personal jurisdiction. (h/t Bashman)

Most of the material should be accessible to Canadian readers. By the way of background, however, the title of the article refers to the foundational case on personal jurisidction in the US: Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877).

Heidegger and Nazism

The law blog's friend David Kopel has some thougts on the new Heidegger book.

One more from the Sesame Street Archives

Federalist Society Convention

If you missed the Annual Federalist Society Lawyers' Convention, then worry no more. Super-blogger Josh Blackman has been live-blogging the convention in his offical capacity. He also has videos of some of the events as well as some amazing interviews. I repost his interview with Richard Epstein, and as usual, Epstein does not disappoint:

Additionally, if you haven't done so, sign up for Josh's fantasy SCOTUS league. This will give you an opportunity to test your ability to forecast the US Supreme Court's decisions. It might seem 'easy on criminal procedure matters, but good luck figuring out how Sotomayor or Scalia will vote on copyright or civil procedural issues.

School Schmool

There has been controversy lately about gender proportions in higher education. Seems fair to say that one question that has been overlooked is why there is such a push for University education in the first place. Mighty high talk for a law student to be sure. But here's a piece from The Chronicle of Higher Education that shines a spotlight on just that debate.

Excerpt:

Q: At what point does the cost of going to college outweigh the benefits?

A: It depends on how much money you have.

Scalia and Brown

New York Times columnist Adam Liptak has an interesting piece recounting a contentious exchange between Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer over how Justice Scalia would have voted in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the decision that declared school segregation unconsitutional. 

About 20 minutes into their discussion in Arizona, Justice Breyer turned to the case.

“Where would you be with school desegregation?” the justice asked with a satisfied expression. “It’s certainly clear that at the time they passed the 14th Amendment, which says people should be treated equally, there was school segregation and they didn’t think they were ending it.”

Justice Breyer, who has a more flexible view of constitutional interpretation than Justice Scalia, said the solution was to identify the value underlying the language in the Constitution and to ignore the specific understandings of those who ratified it.

Justice Scalia, in high sarcasm mode, said relying on general values was not a legitimate way to conduct judicial business, and dismissed the idea that using such a method was easy.

“Piece of cake,” Justice Scalia said, his voice dripping with disdain. “Piece of cake. Following the ‘values.’ ” He spat out that last word as though he had just taken a spoonful of anthrax.

But Justice Scalia did not give a direct answer to how he would have voted in Brown.

Liptak goes on to say that in a 2005 New Yorker profile, Justice Scalia said "he would have voted with the majority in Brown. But he did not explain why."

(via WSJ Law Blog)

Happy Birthday Big Bird and Family

Tomorrow will be the 40th borthday of Sesame Street. Here is a random clip to celebrate the event:

$700 for Court Docs?

The new British Supreme Court is charging 350 British pounds for access to the legal documenst at the Court. (h/t How Appealing) Is this a justifiable expense or a burden on the poor (and  legal academics)?

Twenty Years Ago

the Berlin Wall fell.  Needless to say, this was a great moment in World history. Many of us still remember where we were that day. I invite loyal readers to share their memories in the comments.

So you think you can judge?

Then join Josh Blackman in his Fantasy Supreme Court Fantasy League (US). As is our habit up here, we await the development of the Canadian version. Maybe the folks over at Law is Cool might step up to this challenge.

No Twitter in the Courtroom

So says an American Federal trial court. I suspect a Canadian court faced with the same issue would also rule the same way.

At some point in the future, however, I suspect this may change given the rise of the local blogger and the demise of traditional news sources. Local bloggers, such as Dave Cournoyer (and his Twitter posts), who are doing a great job covering the local issues might soon push for such instant access to courts and public hearings. Stay tuned.

It is easy being green

At the end of my morning commute to the University, which is environmentally friendly, but until the LRT south extension is completed takes too long, I am tempted sometimes to take the escalator (or worse) to the surface. Fortunately today, I was prevented from causing irreparable damage to our planet, since the escalators were not working again and the elevator was taken for the purpose of moving the cleaning equipment during the morning rush. There worst was still ahead, but when I got to the law building I was relieved to see that main elevator still inoperative too (rumour is the ancient art or repairing it has been lost forever). Choice is a dangerous thing indeed.