Barack Obama and the Harvard Law Review
Given our twin obsessions with the Harvard Law Review and Barack Obama, we are compelled to draw your attention to this interesting article, from the Politico (via a commenter). Summarizing Obama’s tenure as HLR president, Jeffrey Ressner and Ben Smith write:
The eight dense volumes produced during his time in charge there — 2,083 pages in all — show the Review to have been a decidedly liberal institution, albeit one in transition as its focus on race and gender was contested by liberals and conservatives alike. Under his tenure, the Review published calls to expand the powers of women, African-Americans and the elderly to sue for discrimination.But Obama, who this March referred to “identity politics” as “an enormous distraction,” was not so easily pinned down. He published a searing attack on affirmative action, written by a former Reagan administration official. And when, in an unusual move, he selected a young woman from a non-Ivy League law school to fill one of the Review’s most prestigious slots, she produced an essay focused on individual responsibilities as much as on liberties, criticizing both conservative judges and feminist scholars.
“I was very surprised and honored to receive the invitation, of course, as I was teaching at Maryland Law School at the time, and the Foreword typically is extended to more established scholars at ‘top’ law schools,” Robin West, now a professor and associate dean at Georgetown Law Center, wrote in an e-mail to Politico.
For more on Professor West and her Harvard Law Review foreword, see the Volokh Conspiracy, where David Bernstein describes Professor West as “an inspired choice.”
Discussion continues, after the jump.
From later on in the Politico piece:
“He was as much a traditionalist as anything,” recalled Susan Estrich, the USC School of Law professor who served as Michael Dukakis’ campaign manager in 1988 — and who broke ground as the first female president of the Harvard Law Review 14 years before Obama took the reins. “It was a big deal that he got the presidency. He was selected because of merit, and he believed in the institution and its history. There are some years [at the Review] that are radical and others that are traditional.”
(Obama’s year was fairly traditional, it seems. The year just ended may have been among the more radical. See here.)
Why should we care about what goes on at the Harvard Law Review?
In Obama’s time, as it is today, the Harvard Law Review was one of the most important and distinguished legal publications in the world. Founded in 1887, it is the rare self-supporting legal publication compiled and edited completely by students, typically those attending their second and third year at the prestigious school.
And it churns out future leaders like Barack Obama, which is another reason the Review merits scrutiny.
The anonymity of student contributions to the Harvard Law Review, such as Notes and Case Comments, sometimes leads to speculation about who wrote what. In Obama’s case, however, his campaign denies that he wrote anything for the HLR that year:
One thing Obama did not do while with the review was publish any of his own work. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama didn’t write any articles for the Review, though his two semesters at the helm did produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned “notes” from Harvard students.Estrich believes that Obama must have had something published that year, even if his campaign says otherwise. “They probably don’t want [to] have you [reporters] going back” to examine the Review.
Interesting speculation, Professor Estrich.
Not everyone is enamored of Obama’s HLR presidency:
In recent months, Obama’s stewardship of the Review has generated a small dust-up in the blogosphere, with some critics insisting that “Obama’s Vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years.” The claim has methodological problems, however, including the fact that Obama oversaw only the first four issues of that volume. Review veterans said he would have an increasing influence — as well as a final read — over the latter half of Volume 103, then a diminishing influence over the second half of Volume 104, produced after he left the presidency.
For more on that citation-count controversy, see TaxProf Blog (and links collected therein).
What’s the overarching takeaway from reviewing Obama’s leadership of the Harvard Law Review? Here’s how the Politico piece concludes:
Obama’s time on the review mirrored other aspects of his life. Even in the staunchly liberal milieus in which he has spent his entire adult life, Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp, and to respect — and even at times to embrace — opposing views. To his critics, that’s a sign of a lack of core beliefs. To his admirers, it’s the root of his appeal.“To understand what someone else is trying to say isn’t just an editorial skill,” said [Tenth Circuit Judge Michael] McConnell. “It’s a life skill.”
Obama kept Law Review balanced [Politico]
(171) 
Comments
Uno!
dos
Impressive. Running the Harvard Law Review (without pissing off any major constituency) is a harder job than being U.S. president.
The more I hear about Obama, the more comfortable I am voting for him in November.
If Judge McConnell, a well-respected conservative judge, likes Obama, he can't be that bad, can he?
Guys at my high school used to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp all the time, it was no big deal.
"Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp"
So, what are we to make of the fact that he was the most liberal senator of 2007? Apparently that wasn't a clear enough ideological stamp.
that's what she said
ocho
1:53: You moron. His record as senator shows that he has a clear personal ideological view, while his tenure as EIC shows that, as a leader, he believes that other views should still be professed to enrich the public discourse.
Also, those polls are highly dubious. Campaign finance reform is not "liberal," but is one of the factors they deem so.
Wow, the most liberal member of a body that was designed to be conservative. That sure says a lot.
Harvard LR is a TTT!
1:58, nice try. If you bothered to read the article, you would note that the quoted text came from this section:
Obama's time on the review mirrored other aspects of his life. Even in the staunchly liberal milieus in which he has spent his entire adult life, Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp, and to respect -- and even at times to embrace -- opposing views.
In other words, it's talking about his leadership apart from his time as president of HLR.
1:53 - that dubious assertion aside, Senators don't lead. They are not executives; they are advocates. The two jobs are fundamentally different. To the extent there exists an internal Senate "leadership," I'm not sure I'd include Obama in that group; in any case, a Senate leader does not do so through his legislative votes, but instead leads through his interactions with the other Senators. Obama may be very liberal, but the evidence suggests he tempers that while fulfilling an executive role.
1:45 - Obama probably is a nice guy, once yiou get past his racist religious leaders, criminal/terrorist friends, ignorant c**t of a wife and typical white woman grandmother - but how does any of that remotely qualify him to be president??
you know 2:02, if someone as obviously intelligent as you can question his qualifications, there must be something to it. way to go.
@2:01: What s/he said.
@2:02: What qualifies someone to be president? Being a POW?
Robin West, by the way, is the shit.
2:02- what has his wife done? (Asking serious question, not snarking, because all the sudden I have heard people expressing anger against her, but I somehow missed whatever it was she did.)
1:45, According to Senator McCain, it is his wife who is the "c**t."
2:02 is a not-so-subtle Ted Hagee troll.
(Will be called a fierce, gay, jewish antichrist in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1)
I think 2:02 is auditioning for Comment of the Day! Pretty exemplary of the ignorant electorate that chooses to emphasize irrelevant and false sensationalized personal elements of a candidate to make voting decisions. GDub LOOKED like such a nice guy...gosh that turned out well.
2:05 -
not just being a POW. it also helps to go to expensive prep schools on your family's money, get into the Naval Academy based on your family name, graduate last in your class, and divorce your first wife and marry your second 30 days later. it also really helps when that second wife is (coincidentally) extremely wealthy, and her (also coincidentally) politically-connected father gets you your own political career. getting shot down really only allows you to imply that the millions of americans who weren't are somehow not "real" americans.
running up hundreds of thousands of dollars of 20+% interest credit card debt is a big advantage as well, given the way the current administration spends money. you want experience you can trust? there you go.
@2:05: But I ask you THIS. Is it not 100% rock and roll to bag a rich wife with a politically-connected father?
Guys at my high school used to congratulate people for having their aircraft shot down by making them President all the time, it was no big deal.
Jesus H Christ, Barama is an ugly man. Damn.
2:15 - Obama is promising to give money to anyone and everyone as fast as it can be printed.
2:21 - she owns a beer distributor - nuff said
Guys at my high school used to useless comments on pointless blogs all the time. It was no big deal.
Everybody! Hot tip! Obama is a Marxist who wants to give away free money! He's been planning it since his days as a Muslim Luo tribesman.
Can someone please confirm whether the "Barack Obama" you are all talking about is the same guy as "Barack HUSSEIN Obama," the guy running for president?
TYIA.
holy crap -- SHUT THE HELL UP with the fratstud meme. it's so unfunny.
Baramma ramma fo famma ...
There is no evidence that he is a Luo tribesman, as far as I know....
I can only imagine that none of the people thinking that this article means anything were ever on a major Law Review. Unless the HLR works differently than mine did, the editorial staffs are picked by the outgoing editorial staff for a variety of reasons, including political diversity. There is an expectation that the articles will reflect this diversity, and the articles are picked by agreement of the editorial staff. The Editor-in-Chief/President is, therefore, first among many in the article choosing process. I'd guess that any major journal you'd look at would have the same basic mix: left-leaning with some right-leaning stuff mixed in...
With that in mind, I guess I don't think it means diddly what Obama "published" unless he wrote it himself. It's also, to my mind, a sign of how skimpy Obama's record is that we have journalists even looking into this issue in order to tease out something about what he might actually do if he were elected president.
@2:38: Absolutely. It's very unusual for the media to look up presidential candidates' histories. It almost never happens.
2:33 - ther eis no evidence that Obama has any experience either, but that doesn't seem to matter to many here.
2:02 is a troll, do not feed the troll.
University of Maryland Law = turd floating in the toilet
@2:33: I think the point is that few experiences are tailor-made to qualify someone for the office of president, so the best we can do is pick someone who we think would do a great job based on a variety of factors. Experience is but one of those factors, and serves only to tell us how the person thinks and what he intends to do. There's no standard preparation like the 1L year or something (although, with the amount of lawyers being president...)
I, for one, support Obama because he constantly espouses nuanced and introspective thinking, and that's very unusual for a presidential candidate. Then again, I am brought back down to Earth when he says things like "Jerusalem should not be divided." He's a mortal, but a really smart one who would definitely lead in line with my ideals.
The fact that people are pouring over his time as HLR EIC simply means that there is scant other experience to look into. People who have been on a law review board will tell you just how little this experience should mean in terms of presidential prepatory experience.
Whats a troll?
2:45: Obama is a turd floating in a toilet?
2:50: I couldn't agree more.
2:38 is correct.
2:38 is correct.
2:50 - you mean "scant experience" as opposed to, say, the hundreds of years' worth of collective experience contained within the inner circle of the current administration? As opposed to the considerable executive experience W had when he ran for president?
I'll take Obama's character, intelligence, honesty, and integrity over "experience" (especially Senate experience) any time. And based on what I've read on both candidates' leadership styles, I feel good about that choice.
Bottom line: neither of these candidates has any experience being President of the United States, and there is no job that can "prepare" you to be POTUS.
I just want a candidate who fully embraces "change"
OBAMA SMOKES WEED....
Obama's the guy at the country club holding a martini making snide comments about everyone else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R2pOZuBd_U&feature=related
Can he lead? Dunno...but at least he has rythm!
Obama's blue lips make him look he has been swimming in a pool of ice for an hour. Brrrrrr.....
We truly live in a world of diminished expectations when a mediocrity like Obama is held up as a paragon of intelligence and accomplishment. I weep for this country.
i weep for your overinflated sense of self-worth and twisted worldview. I suppose he'd be less of a mediocrity if he had spent the past decade knocking out those 2800-hour years?
"The more I hear about Obama, the more comfortable I am voting for him in November."
Aparently Obama's "paid staff in all 50 states" reads ATL.
Guys in my high school espoused nuanced and introspective thinking all the time. It was no big deal.
Guys in my HS were held up as paragons of intelligence and accomplishment all the time, and no one wept for our country. It was no big deal.
Michele Obama will wup yo ass if you act a fool like dat, son!
I'm voting for Obama because, presently, too much of money goes to my family and not enough goes to the federal government. Changing *that* is something I can believe in.
Please remove the Fried Frank from your Cravath. It is vulgar and insensitive.
3:30, I think you mean Obama's 57 states.
Honest question from an undecided voter:
Will an Obama presidency really mean less take-home pay for Biglaw associates? If so, is there any way in which an Obama presidency would positively affect my life so as to offset that?
So, the story here is that NOTHING happened when Obama was president of the Law Review?
WTF? Unless he wrote an unbelievably well-quoted piece or a horrible piece or r the Law Review just plain sucked or he didn't deserve the job and got it anyway, there is no story.
As none of those things are presented here, there is therefore no story.
This is just a mild puff piece on how great Obama was in law school. Yawn.
3:46, Obama wants to severely raise taxes on those making more than $250k, which is most biglaw associates after a few years of working, after taking bonus and inflation into account.
Expect to pay 60 cents to the government for every additional dollar you make at that point.
And you'll hit the $250k point even more easily if you are married to anyone who makes any decent amount of money.
3:46 - we could not be hated by the rest of the world, and in turn avoid unnecessary wars
3:46,
I'm sure there are many nuanced and varied responses to your question.
In my view, one approach would be: Obama may take a little more of your money (which, supposedly, will go toward reducing poverty and thus hunger and crime, reducing the chances that you'll be mugged, etc.), but the offset is the hope that under Obama, the chances of someone flying their plane into your office will be less than they would be under McCain.
Plus fewer teen pregnancies (less crime and poverty), a stabilizing of the divorce rate, blah blah blah.
4:16 and 4:24 belong to Obama's internet task force. It's either that or the work for Mr. Roarke.
4:29 works for McCain! OMG! I'm so funny.
"I'll take Obama's character, intelligence, honesty, and integrity". LOL. If you can find any, it's all yours.
Close, 3:45, but it's 58 states.
4:38, It's 57. Check the clip on YouTube. He says they've got one state left to go aside from Hawai'i and Alaska, and clearly meant to say 47 but accidentally said 57 instead. Just like McCain mixes up Iran with various other countries and holds his microphone upside down. Campaigns are exhausting, and even Senators are only human.
4:24, your naivete is cute. Obama will give the money to the corn lobby for ethanol production, and give free insurance to free-riders who purposely chose not to buy insurance (actual poor people who can't afford insurance can already get it through Medicaid and numerous state programs). He will also give a subsidy to seniors, who don't have to pay taxes on up to $50k of income (while a regular person would have paid $7k).
More Taxes We Can Believe In.
4:41 - I'm not 4:38, but if you're going to be a stupid-as-shit worshiper of the Dali Obama (1) don't cite YouTube as a credible source and (2) go back to second grade math:
The Dali Obama stated that he had visited 57 states and had 1 left to go - Thus,
visited 57
need to visit: 1
total 58
Obama has started to sell Michele's booty juice online.
4:41 - I've seen the tape. He said "I've now been in 57 states, I think one left to go." That would be 58 states.
4:38
Though in this context there is no reason to exclude Alaska and Hawaii so it would be the full 60 states.
I didn't realize the RNC and Fox's Fair and Balanced News had dispensed its little lackies to blogs as remote as this one.
From Politico:
Is he a Muslim, a Christian with a crazy pastor or a Communist atheist with a hippie mom?
Is he ruthless and overly ambitious or naive and weak?
Is an outsider who is "foreign" to our values or the country club goer?
Is he too South Side, too "black" or too Hyde Park and elitist ? Does he resent white people or is he part of the elite that sneers at blue-collars?
Does he not care about "little people" or is a socialist who will redistribute hard-earned money to everyone?
C'mon McCainophiles, let's get your story straight.
God, you people suck.
Does anyone NOTICE that deficits happen during REPUBLICAN PRESIDENCIES because of THEIR SPENDING?
No, I'm not a big fan of tax and spend. But I am even less of a fan of spend us into a deeper and deeper deficit, while not taxing.
Hello! The dollar is falling! Does anyone care?
Regardless of what number he was thinking, I am disturbed by the "I think" part of the quote. If he's been to 47, then he needs to visit 3 more, or 1 more other than Alaska and Hawaii. A fecking senator should know how many states there are.
If you called your (Irish Catholic) mother up and she said "i've just visited 5 of your brothers, I think just 2 more to go", wouldn't you feel compelled to say Woman, what do you mean "think", either you have 2 more sons or you don't.
5:08, you miss the genius of the Republicans. He is all bad things to all people. Whatever you hate, he represents. Doublethink, 2008 edition.
As much as Obama is tripping all over himself in his campaign I'll be shocked if he can find his way from the Capitol Building to the White House if he's inaugurated.
5:08, if you pull out your copy of the constitution you will see that the power of the purse resides with Congress. And if you look at the basic economic numbers, you will see that lower taxes actually increase government revenue because they increase economic activity and the government is taxing economic activity. Obama himself admitted this when he admitted in a debate that raising the capital gains tax will result in lower revenue but that we should do it anyway out of "fairness".
Interesting how Obama supporters convince themselves that any dissenting opinion is the product of the RNC or Fox News sending out their "lackies." It certainly couldn't be that regular folks are critical of Obama, could it?
Interesting how McCain supporters lump all Obama supporters with those who say that any dissenting opinion is the product of the RNC or Fox News sending out their "lackies." It certainly couldn't be just one or two morons, could it?
4:56,
I cited YouTube as a way to easily obtain video of the quote in question, asshat. If you'd prefer that I link to the same exact video on CNN or the Washington Post's website, whatever.
4:56/4:58,
As much fun as it is for people who dislike Obama to seize on this quote (as if there were no legitimate grounds for criticism), you ignore the fact that he clearly meant 48, as he stated he was not counting Alaska and Hawai'i, since the campaigns do not go there.
Nice of you to assume that I'm some rabid Obama supporter, though. I'm just a fence-sitter who likes to get his facts straight rather than parrot some talking-heads over completely meaningless slips.
"I'll take Obama's character, intelligence, honesty, and integrity over "experience" (especially Senate experience) any time. "
It amazes me that such intelligent people buy into this crap. Here's a tip: he would not be in office if he didn't throw off all his principles and whore himself day and night to get there.
The other question about deficits taht no one ever asks is whether they are even bad to begin with. The fderal government's "leverage" compared to an average corporation, even a successful one, is relatively low. From an economic perspective, the government should continue to borrow more money as long as it can put the money to use in a way that the marginal return on the money in the form of GDP is higher than the interest rate. You could easily argue that the government is under-leveraged.
4:45, your ignorance is cute. Those who choose not to buy health insurance will not be given health insurance under Obama's plan -- that was Hillary's plan. Learn the difference.
Also, I bet you'll change your tune about senior taxes when you're ready to retire. It's a completely different fiscal scenario.
Politicians (left, right, middle) are all scum. Quit deluding yourselves into thinking this guy is above that.
5:23: And he wouldn't be the nominee if he were just an empty suit. Whether people want to admit it or not, he's intelligent, has a nuanced understanding of issues, and is a heck of a strategist.
5:16, that's probably a curve, right? in other words, if we lower certain taxes from our current level, revenues would increase, but lowering them further would cause revenues to decrease again (even at a level below zero or similarly insignificant)?
This is ridiculous. Obama was EIC. The EIC does not select the articles published. It's like judging a chef's cooking by the wait staff's attitude or the bus boy's responsiveness.
5:27, politics is a marketplace just like any other. They're only scum because we keep electing scum. Vote for somebody you like and convince others to do the same, that's supposedly the point of democracy.
No, 5:32. Politicians are scum because only scum choose to become politicians.
5:28 PM said: And he wouldn't be the nominee if he were just an empty suit. Whether people want to admit it or not, he's intelligent, has a nuanced understanding of issues, and is a heck of a strategist.
Possibly. But, even leaving aside his misguided ideas about policy (the legacy of being educated by the hypocrites who occupy most Ivy League chairs), Hitler was pretty intelligent, nuanced, and gifted at strategy (humping votes, anyway)--but he sure turned out a sonofabitch, didn't he?
Bottom line, who in their right mind would trust a Chicago politician to run the country?! Jesus, didn' t this country learn enough about getting screwed when it elected Clinton *and then* Bush?
~5:23
Politicians killed 5:36's parents.
2:15 -
You missed a point. It also helps to divorce your first wife after she's horribly disfigured in an accident. Stand-up guy that McCain. There were plenty of guys in my high school just like W and McW and they all ended up the same way -- f**king and drinking liquor. McW has gone W one better; he married the brewer.
running up hundreds of thousands of dollars of 20+% interest credit card debt is a big advantage as well, given the way the current administration spends money. you want experience you can trust? there you go.
5:44: You're invoking Hilter for why we shouldn't elect Obama? Really?
5:44--
Watch the Hitler references.
You obviously don't follow the news. A number of modern day politicians have had to apologize after comparing a contemporary person or event to Hitler or the Holocaust.
Intelligent, savvypeople, therefore, refrain from comparing people like Obama to Hitler, even if their instincts tell them to do so; your point gets distorted because the focus becomes your inovcation of Hitler, rather than the actual point you were making.
5:17: I agree. "Regular folks" are critical of Obama.
Fox News and Republican operatives (like the Swift Boat people who are about to publich a similar book on Obama) influence regular folks, who frankly are not very intelligent in this country, and are easily swayed by propoganda.
How surprising that an Obama supporter holds the folks in contempt.
How surprising a McCain supporter wouldn't understand that folks could support Obama.
How surprising that an Obama supporter (a) assumes anyone critical of Obama is a "McCain supporter" and (b) misrepresents what the critic actually said.
How surprising that a McCain supporter (a) assumes anyone critical of an Obama detractor is an "Obama supporter" and (b) writes ambiguously.
About 1/3 of the way through, the Politico article makes a significant error in stating:
"Her [Eleanor Kerlow's] book was set in the following year, when Obama's successor circulated a parody of an article by a feminist legal scholar who had been murdered, igniting a crippling ideological power struggle at the Review."
This strikes me as possibly libeling David Ellen, the president after Obama. Ellen had virtually nothing to do with the Harvard Law Revue "parody" issue of the Review which was circulated at the annual Review banquet in April, 1992, and which brutally attacked the memory of Mary Joe Frug exactly one year, almost to the minute, after her brutal murder. One point of the Revue tradition was to poke fun at the outgoing president, so although Ellen read it before it was printed and ultimately apologized for not quashing some of its content, at the time it was being put together he was reluctant to get heavily involved (also, I believe he was out of town), so he was one of the persons LEAST responsible for this outrage.
In reality, the person who headed up this parody issue was Paul Clement, who chaired the Supreme Court office of the Review, which typically headed up production of the Revue "parody" issue. Clement authored (I believe with Andrew Fish, though I'm not positive) a parody of Charles Ogletree's case comment on Arizona v. Fulminante, in which Clement took the opportunity to portray Ogletree as an intellectual fraud, and to portray members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as sexual perverts -- as obsessed by the sexual details of the Clarence Thomas hearing, concerning Anita Hill's attacks on Thomas (I wonder whether anyone brought that up when some of the same Senators reviewed his nomination to be Solicitor General). Reflecting Clement's authorship, the piece bore a "law and economics" theme matching one of Clement's main interests.
Clement's attack on Ogletree probably would have triggered significant criticism if it had not been for the even more outrageous attack made on Mary Joe Frug and her article. For example, the purported author of the piece parodying Frug's article was "Mary Doe," a "Rigor-Mortis Professor of Law." That piece was authored by Craig Coben and Ken Fenyo, but edited by Clement. Somehow, Clement managed to avoid accepting responsibility for the piece attacking Frug, even though he was in charge of the Revue issue, approved the attack on Frug, and actually edited it.
Only Coben and Fenyo explicitly admitted a role in the Frug piece, though a total of 10 editors, including Coben and Fenyo and Clement, publicly admitted (but only after pressure being applied by other editors) to some sort of role in producing the Revue "parody" issue. Clement never publicly admitted to having headed up the production of the Revue, and having edited the piece attacking Frug.
For the record, the editors who either instigated this outrage or who failed to take appropriate steps to block its publication, who might appropriately be called "The Revue 10," are as follows (alphabetical order):
1. Paul D. Clement
2. Craig B. Coben
3. David Ellen
4. Kenneth M. Fenyo
5. Andrew L. Fish
6. Mark David Harris
7. Janis C. Kestenbaum
8. Sean A. Lev
9. Robert K. Niewyk
10. Edith Ramirez
How surprising that an Obama supporter didn't correct that assumption the first time it was made and needs everything spelled out in big block letters.
"How surprising that an Obama supporter holds the folks in contempt."
Stop with you simplified, politicized statements. I am not holding the "folks" (as the elitist O'Reilly says) "in contempt." Rather, I'm giving an honest analysis as to how Republicans get so many people to vote against their interests. As someone interested in politics, I applaud these right-wingers. I wish Democrats could find a way to manipulate more people and get them to vote Democratic.
You call O'Reilly an elitist, but he's looking out for the folks. Meanwhile, your hero BHO is the guy at the country club with the hot date, holding a martini and leaning against the wall making fun of everyone else.
6:02 and 6:03, neither one of you are advancing the debate.
-Obama supporter.
5:48/5:55
"Watch the Hitler references. "
Surely--heaven forfend that you might not take some random person's opinion on a blog devoted to claptrap seriously.
But first, in defense: reductio ad Hitlerum is the only argument one can raise with our brothers and sisters to the Left of the aisle that they won't simply answer with "that's just your opinion, man." And second--thankfully--on an anonymous blog one can dispense with the BS pandering to political correctness and speak freely, misunderstanding be damned.
Of course, making the comparison is a stretch worthy of the finest yogi, but in all seriousness, there are substantial parallels between Obama and Hitler--they're both extraordinarily charismatic, they both get a hard-on from centralizing power, and they both don't know shit about running a country, for instance--so it's not just hyperbole. A serious joke, if you prefer.
~5:44
Yeah, we need another "regular guy" to be President. That always works out so well. Remember when JFK had martinis at the country club with hot dates? What a horrible time for our country.
JFK sucked.
6:23: I think you have a massive inferiority complex. Not sure why I get that impression from your posts, but I'd wager big bucks on it.
With the Hitler thing, it is not needed in this context. Your point is that electing someone based only on Charisma and overlooking any real experience. You do not need to go back to the 1930s. How about 2000.
Hard to believe and/or remember but Bush II was funny, personable and more fluid than Gore. People took to him and the conservatives were enthused about his compasionate conservative sticht. The country (not a majority but close) overlooked his failed business career, and that his only real experience in public life was Gov. of Texas for less than 8 years. (Job skills: ability to kill mentally retarded criminals, Grin and say "don't mess with Texas").
The argument against obama si we tried that Koolaid in 2000, it didn't work out so well.
6:23: I think you have a massive inferiority complex.
Luckily I masturbate frequently enough that it doesn't show outside of blog comment boxes.
FREE COPY OF OBAMA'S VOLUME OF HARVARD LAW REVIEW!
The Politico article says Obama's Volume 104 isn't "available for free online . . . ." Hey, this is America in 2008! EVERYTHING is available for free online, right?
E.g., something like a 100MB file available here:
http://depositfiles.com/files/6169670
Volume cut into two pieces, available here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?lzjevzjce1j
http://www.mediafire.com/?0fmrgvg4ise
Now, you can evaluate Obama's work product without having to walk your lazy ass to a library. Isn't America great? "Yes, we can!"
6:33: "With the Hitler thing, it is not needed in this context. Your point is that electing someone based only on Charisma and overlooking any real experience. You do not need to go back to the 1930s. How about 2000."
I regret making the point. Still, it *is* needed because Obama is not some bumblefuck like Bush. He's got a seriousness and gravity (like, 17 Cha or something--that's a lot of henchmen) that allow him to make big policy decisions, or, more likely, sell big policy decisions to the people. That is *more dangerous* than incompetence (see Bush).
Hitler was dangerous because he was the most powerful orator of his generation, not just because he was a fucking loony...loonies are everywhere (we can smell our own), but only people who can move the masses can crash the ship into a reef. And here comes Obama, the perfect storm--dumb in only the way that the inexperienced can be, but gifted in conveying his ideas to the people and making them excited about it.
Comparing Obama to W based on experience is ridiculous. It assumes that Bush has been a horrible president because of his lack of experience rather than the other myriad reasons. Where Bush is weak, Obama is strong. Obama is intellectually inquisitive, nuanced, hard-working. He has good judgment, makes strategic decisions well. He's not perfect, but no one is. He's a good option, and a significantly better option than McCain.
6:42: Is that a joke? Are you aware of Iraq and what's been going on over there?
6:21:
You're right--O'R'eilly's looking out for the folks, Fox is Fair and Balanced and Colmes is a competent liberal who can hold is own. Don't try pulling that shit on me. I watch Fox News incessantly because it'slike watching a train wreck. It's awful, but it's such a disaster I can't take my eyes off of it. So don't pretend like O'Reilly is some sort of populist. He's an elite asshole who lives in a mansion on Long Island, works in one of the most liberal cities in America (NYC) and is manipulating simple-minded people to become a 100 millionaire.
5:59 Obama supporters are so funny. If a regular folk supports McCain, it must be:
1. they are not very intelligent, i.e., they're idiots
2. they are easily swayed by Fox News and Republican operatives
3. they are obviously voting against their interests
4. all of the above
Guess what people, many regular folks believe in abstract notions of fundamental fairness. Some people don't believe that people making $500,000 a year should pay 60% of that to the government in taxes, or the government should take half of anybody's estate at death, even if they themselves will never expect to have that much money. They might also realize that heavily taxing capital wealth reduces capital stock and job creation, which is basic Economics 101 that liberals never seem to get.
Keep on telling yourselves that the regular folks are simpletons who don't know any better and just blindly follow Republican operatives, who must be real busy these days. Keep on insulting the middle majority of the country, and wonder why Democrats have lost seven out of the last ten Presidential elections.
Agree with you 6:47, Bush convinced people to vote against their interests twice, to support a war against Iraq based on piss poor reasons, and got two very conservative pieces of shit on the Supreme court. He certainly crashed the ship, and the reef will be fucked for years to come.
6:33
People, please! Politics is tearing this website apart! Instead of fighting over that which divides us, we should be coming together around that which unites us--a shared lack of respect for the Harvard Law Review.
6:53: It's actually a matter of ignorance rather than intelligence. For example, McCain supporters might not understand concepts like the decreasing marginal utility of a dollar (which makes higher taxes on higher earners fair). Not all McCain supporters, mind you, but some.
7:01, decreasing marginal utility would also mean taxing older people more than younger people, since older people have a lifetime of assets saved up so each extra dollar is worth less, have less life expectancy in which to use that money so each dollar's worth of assets will last less, and have no school debt or dependent kids to support.
Why don't you draw up a proposal to tax old people more based on their lower marginal utility of the dollar and see how many "intelligent" people jump on your bandwagon.
6:33 "He certainly crashed the ship, and the reef will be fucked for years to come."
Granting all your points--can you imagine if the guy was actually *smooth*? Can you fathom the damage he could have done if people thought he was competent and trustworthy??
Here's another tip: "change you can believe in" means "promises to get your stupid ass to vote for me so that I can go back to making the big $$ happy." The only difference between O and W is that people will have even less of a critical faculty when it comes to O than they did with W.
6:47 PM: Is that a joke? Are you aware of Iraq and what's been going on over there?
Well, yeah. I kinda thought the D&D reference was pretty funny. But regarding the substance, see above comment.
Two quick points:
1. The Politco article quotes Eleanor Kerlow, author of the 'Poisoned Ivy" book from back in something like 1994, as saying: "I never heard anything negative about" Obama in researching her book. WHAT????
Back in February, in a comment on a David Bernstein post on Volokh, I quoted this excerpt from Kerlow's book in support of my contention that basically Obama was perceived by his fellow editors as lazy -- not willing to work hard enough to fulfill his duties:
"Obama was friendly and outgoing, but the class succeeding him wanted a tougher editor to lead them. [David] Ellen, quiet and fair-haired, had graduated summa cum laude in history and science from Harvard College in 1987. He had worked at The New Republic in 1989, the summer before starting law school, and was seen as someone who would be a more rigorous blue-penciler."
http://volokh.com/posts/1202117776.shtml#323660
2. Back in February I asked whether Obama was trying to hide something about his work on the Review, and said I assumed Martin Peretz had good enough connections to find out from Obama's campaign people what, exactly, he published during his two years on the Review:
http://volokh.com/posts/1202906269.shtml#326729
Apparently, Peretz made just such an inquiry (though I can't claim credit for the idea; it's an obvious one), and the story Obama's people are giving is that OBAMA DIDN'T PUBLISH ANYTHING during his 2 years on the Review!
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/06/23/did-obama-write-something-for-the-harvard-law-review.aspx
I was hoping not to have to mention this, as I disdain "appeals to authority," but I'm a former Review editor myself. The Review GUARANTEES that each editor has the opportunity to publish not just one, not just two, but THREE pieces during his or her two years on the Review. At the very minimum, an editor will publish a "Note" in his or her third year, because he or she has to write a paper to graduate, anyway, and it's little extra trouble to turn the paper into a published "Note" (sometimes a president, given his or her busy schedule, will publish the "Note" after graduation).
On its face, it seems literally unbelievable that although Obama was guaranteed the ability to publish 3 pieces of his own while on the Review, he published NONE. If so, I think he might be the first person in the history of the 120+ years of the Review never to actually write something for publication -- something which, if true, would tend to fuel the impression that Obama was lazy in carrying out work on the Review.
But I don't think it's true. The New Republic article I just linked to above quotes Susan Estrich (identified as "a former Harvard Law Review editor," but actually, a former Harvard Law Review PRESIDENT) as saying that Obama MUST have published something, and that Obama's campaign must be lying in saying otherwise. And Noam Scheiber, the New Republic reporter, says he's checked with editors who served with Obama who have personal knowledge of the situation and who believe Obama's campaign people are lying in saying that Obama wrote absolutely nothing for the Review.
So the question is: what, exactly, did Obama write for the Review (assuming, as seems the case, that his campaign people are lying). A British paper has some speculation here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/06/law-review-obama-usa-vote
It will be interesting to see what others think. Shouldn't Obama personally put this issue to bed, one way or another, ASAP? It seems to be that he should either personally fess up to what he wrote (even if it was something controversial), or fess up to having written NOTHING, as soon as possible. Otherwise, people will keep speculating and Obama will have to address this point eventually anyway.
7:09: People did think he was competent and trustworthy. You think the only difference between Obama and W is "smoothness"? You're retarded. Seriously, have your head checked. You're endangering yourself and everyone around you.
This was the LEAST CITED volume of the HLR in the last 30 years.
" I'm giving an honest analysis as to how Republicans get so many people to vote against their interests."
Interesting how convincing people--be they poor or not--that it's morally wrong and unamerican to tax harder working, more sucessful people at confiscatory rates is getting them to vote "against their interests."
Get it through your heads: not everyone is in favor of State-sanctioned armed robbery, even if they get a cut of the loot.
Hear hear, 11:01.
Liberals seem to think that poorer people only have one interest, and that is pecuniary. Poorer people are just dying to get their hands on the property of others, through more redistributive taxation; that is until they were deceived by Fox News and those sinister Republican operatives.
Maybe liberals think that poor people should never give to charity either, since giving money away is against their interests. Those evil charities are really working to make poor people act against their own interests.
It's funny that poorer people only have pecuniary interests at heart, while the wealthier liberals are so much more altruistic and are willing to work against their own pecuniary interests and redistribute more money to the poor. I guess only rich people can care about things besides their own accumulated dollars.
"decreasing marginal utility of a dollar (which makes higher taxes on higher earners fair)"
I've always had a nagging question about the declining marginal utility of money, since nobody who advances it as an argument in favor of "progressive" taxation has deigned to address how the time invested in earning one's total income affects the marginal utility of each dollar earned.
For example, lets say I grant that declining marginal utility makes it fair to tax Joe Blow (works 40 hrs a week, 5 days a week, with a month of vacation/leave per year, making $50,000) and C.E.O. (works 40 hrs a week, 5 days a week, with a month of vacation/leave per year, making $500,000) at wildy different rates.
Does the same argument make it fair to tax Joe Blow (works 40 hrs a week, 5 days a week, with a month of vacation/leave per year, making $50,000) and E.S.Q. (works 80 hrs a week, 6 days a week, with only two weeks of vacation/leave per year, making $500,000) at similarly different rates? It seems to me that if someone chooses to invest that much of their time in the pursuit of money, it may indicate that they value those dollars rather highly. At the very least, you run into a serious incomensurability problem where the utility of something people trade their time away for is concerned.
11:18 raises a good point, and it's something already reflected in overtime laws: work more than 40 hours a week, and you must be paid time and a half. Taxes would be more truly progressive if they, too, took account of the hours required to earn salaried income, with those working longer hours for the same salary being taxed at a lower rate.
the obama campaign doesn't say that obama didn't write anything. they just confuse the issue, apparently successfully, by saying that obama didn't write any articles but did "produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned 'notes.'"
Re: New Statesman article. Vol. 140? Huh? So much for credibility. But i'm SURE Mr. Robertson got everything else right.
I hate all of you
Hillary did exactly what a woman should do: put up enough of a struggle to make it fun, but in the end SHE GOT FUCKED!
Re: decreasing marginal utility
Let's say that two people, Young Buffett and Young Hilton, both make $50,000 a year. But Young Buffett has saved up $100,000 of hard earned money over the years, while Young Hilton, a profligate spender, saved nothing. Obviously Young Buffet has less marginal utility for his income, since an additional dollar is worth not as much when one already has $100k saved up.
If we want to tax decreasing marginal utility, we should take Young Buffett more than Young Hilton, right? So we want to penalize people who save, now?
It seems like the tax code should encourage certain beneficial activities, like, you know, saving and making more money.
People who argue for progressive taxation based on "decreasing marginal utility" sound like they only took AP Econ for a week and then stopped learning new concepts like "elasticity" and "incentives."
Obviously Young Hilton has less marginal utility for his income, since an additional dollar is not worth as much when you've already purchased everything you wanted that could be obtained with $100,000.
Obviously, 10:50, you don't understand the concept of buying disposable/consumable goods and/or entertainment services with your income.
What 10:50 is really say is that peoples' desires above the subsistance threshold are increasingly unimportant in the eyes of the all knowing shepards of the State.
It isn't important how much the individuals who work for the dollars value what they can buy with them--10:50 knows for sure that their feelings on the matter must be less important than the feelings of others who work (and make) less.
10:50, obviously you don't understand what "profligate" in the phrase "a profligate spender" means. Just so you know, it means "recklessly extravagant or wasteful in the use of resources."
11:07,
Who's to judge what is considered extravagant or wasteful? 10:55 seems to think that disposables/consumables and/or entertainment services could eat this up and take care of the problem -- but even if someone sees as many movies as they can for $100,000, that's that many fewer movies left for them to possibly want to watch. The issue is not resolved.
Now, there remains an incentive to save or invest, or more properly a mild disincentive to spend profligately, and it's called sales tax.
Is the tax code in need of an overhaul? Yes. Is the progressive slope too steep? Maybe. Does $100,000 have the same utility to someone who makes $1M a year as $1,000 does to someone who makes $10,000 a year? No.
If the tax code incentivized making more money, that would suggest a decrease in the adjusted amount of tax paid as income rises. The percent of income paid could be reduced or made flat, or the real amount could remain flat. Either way, this imposes a disproportionate burden on those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, who are least able to bear it. While this might result in maximizing income for individuals at the top in the short term, it drastically reduces long-term societal prosperity.
11:07, try buying something online from out of state, or shop in a state without a sales tax. Or shop in a country without a VAT. Or buy any of a number of things that are exempt from sales tax.
Does $50,000 have the same utility to someone who has $100,000 in the bank as $50,000 to someone who has nothing in the bank? No.
So why don't you have progressive taxation based on how much someone has saved.
The top 1% earn 20% of all income but pay 40% of income taxes. The bottom 50% currently pay ~3% of income taxes while earning four times that in income. It will be a long time before they bear a disproportionate burden.
Plus, most services are not subject to sales tax.
It's also funny that you say we can't judge the marginal utility of what someone will use with their money, and then turn around and judge the marginal utility of someone who is earning money.
Does $100,000 have the same utility to someone who makes $1M a year, but is 24-year-old and has $300k of med school debt, as $1,000 does to someone who makes $10,000 a year, but has a $5 million inheritance in municipal bonds? No.
But not in the same direction that you want to advocate.
2:01, sales tax is still charged here for goods purchased online, even if purchased from another state. Physically buying in another state, or moving there to avoid sales tax, or going to another country to shop, would probably cost more than the savings. It also requires financial ability to do so in the first place.
Also, your example is flawed -- that $5M inheritance will be counted as income in at least one year.
Much of the talk around here has been that spending is the best thing for the economy, so when did saving suddenly become the most beneficial activity?
Um, 2:19, the NY sales tax applies only to online vendors that have a presence in the state (like Amazon and its NY affiliates). Purely out-of-state vendors selling to NY don't have to pay sales tax.
Please learn more about taxation before spouting off. Thanks for trying though.
And the inheritance counting as income in a previous year is completely irrelevant to how much marginal utility the person would get from more income this year. So what you're saying is that two people who are making $10,000 a year have the same marginal utility on that $10,000, even if one had received a huge $5M taxed inheritance last year? Yeah, right.
2:25, saving is good for the individual himself, but spending is good for the economy (i.e., everyone else).
This article makes it sound like he was the only one editing. In truth, while an EiC has some power, it's not like they have the only say. Even if s/he has the final say, no EiC wants to risk alienating his/her editors by making all decisions him/herself.
4:25,
As of June 1, 2008, you are wrong. Please review recent New York tax legislation before spouting off. Thanks for trying, though.
And the point is that the person would have already paid the greater tax rate in the year when they earned an additional $5M through their inheritance. To continue to tax at that level would be a continued assault on what's left of the $5M. Everything resets to zero at the start of a new fiscal year.
4:25,
Also, vendors don't pay sales tax. Consumers do. The vendor merely acts as a collector for the state. Previously, consumers were still required to pay sales tax under the "sales and use tax", line 56 on your 1040. Nobody did it, but it's there. Now, even out-of-state vendors are required to collect. This is, obviously, going to be challenged in court.
By the way, I anticipate that you're going to repond with NY's argument that the "Amazon Associates" constitute a presence in NY, and that if one were to order something over the internet from some independent company in another state with absolutely no ties of any kind to New York, it would not fall under this legislation. That's true. But it doesn't avoid the obligation of the sales and use tax.
Answering “Revue Critic” (6:16 last night):
Perhaps a little context for your criticism would be helpful for readers. Clement, Coben, Fenyo, and various others were in charge of writing and publishing the “Revue” parody issue for the April, 1992, Review banquet. The whole point of the “Revue” issue was to parody some of the more questionable aspects of the Review’s work during the past year. As with any parody, it was intended to be funny, but it was more than that: it was a form of institutional self-criticism.
Annual publication of the “Revue” issue was a time-honored tradition. You can find a reference to it as far back as 1915, here:
http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/~law00003
Thus, this “Revue” issue was not something special cooked up just to attack Frug (or Ogletree, for that matter). The parody of Frug’s article was just a few pages of the issue, which lampooned plenty of other pieces and people. The 10 editors who put together the Revue consisted of conservatives, moderates, and liberals, both men and women, so it can’t be painted as having been involved sort of right-wing, male-dominated plot to tar a prominent legal feminist.
What were “The Revue 10,” as you call them (to convey some vaguely criminal flavor?) supposed to do? Ignore the article of Mary Joe Frug which had just been published weeks earlier in the March issue? It would have been impossible for editors responsible for doing a parody of the most questionable aspects of the Review's past year of work. The Frug article wasn’t just the worst piece published that year in the Review. It was quite possibly the worst piece ever published in any law review, in any year. For example, it has a # 1 ranking in the “Top Ten Politically Correct Law Review Articles” of all time:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/271/Aust.pdf
Yes, any parody of Frug’s article inevitably involved criticism of the work of someone who, due to her very tragic death a year earlier, was not around to defend herself. But that wasn’t the fault of the editors who put together the parody. It was the fault of liberal editors on the Review who, against fierce opposition, decided to publish a fourth-rate article by a second-rate professor who was teaching at a third-rate law school (New England School of Law) – an article which wasn’t even edited (merely a draft, possibly reflecting no more than a week’s writing).
The liberal editors defended the publication of Frug’s rough draft of some of her musings on feminism and pornography as an an appropriate “tribute” to Frug, but that explanation was, in effect, an admission that Frug's article couldn’t possibly meet the Review’s standards for publication and was being published merely because: (1) Frug was murdered; and (2) Frug’s husband was on the Harvard law faculty and, partly for that reason, Frug had friends on the faculty who with Frug’s husband pressured the editors to publish the piece. The parody piece appropriately lampooned that ridiculous reality through the voice of the deceased Frug ("Mary Doe") commenting on how her death was a good career move, etc. Perhaps tasteless, but hardly as tasteless as the underlying decision which was being parodied.
In short, Frug’s article was a legitimate subject of parody, the ten editors who did the “Revue” parody issue properly lampooned it, and all the rancor surrounding this event resulted not from anything wrong with the “Revue” issue, but from: (1) the feminists’ efforts to paint the “Revue” issue as something it was not; and (2) their unwillingness to concede that the Frug article being parodied was basically garbage, that it should never have been published, and that Frug should have been permitted to rest in peace rather than being used by liberals and feminists to promote their ideological agenda.
That’s my view, at any rate, and I thought readers might benefit from a little context.
(5:04 back)
At the risk of torturing readers, I have decided to post, below, an excerpted version of Frug's article which was was a subject of the "Revue" parody issue. There's really no other way of conveying how legitimate an object of parody this article was.
I have excerpted it because the article meandered 2 or 3 times longer than it should have for what little it actually said, and no one should be forced to actually read the thing to get the gist of it.
To anyone who thinks he or she could actually stand to read the whole thing (I did, twice, and my brain almost exploded), the citation is: 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1045 (March, 1992).
Basically, the article consists of a bunch of mostly random observations by Frug on two topics: (1) prostitution; and (2) pornography. As to prostitution, Frug's main thesis is that the legal system forces women to prostitute themselves in one of two ways: get married (to a man, not woman) and prostitute themselves to their husbands, or be a "sex worker" and prostitute themselves on an ad hoc basis. Frug thinks that "sex workers" agree with her "postmodern feminism" theory, whatever that means.
As to pornography, I won't spoil it for you, but Frug has some really neat scholarly observations about pornography and its relation to various issue, including this paragraph which appears near the end of the excerpt (p. 1072 of the Revew), which might be the most infamous paragraph ever published in an American law journal:
"In pornography, women get fucked. Now, women get 'fucked' in the workplace, too, where we do 'woman's work' for 'woman's wages,' working for male bosses and working on male schedules. We get assigned to this inferior work track because we are identifiable by our sex. In addition, our past and present economic, social, and physical subordination makes us vulnerable to physical abuse at work, on the way there, and on the way back. We are raped at work or on route to work because of our sex, because we are cunts."
To the extent it's possible, I hope you enjoy Frug's "manifesto." As you read it, you might ask yourself two questions: (1) doesn't this sound like something written by a law school dropout who's high on a combination of crystal meth and LSD?, or even a strung-out crack whore?; and (2) why in the world would the Harvard Law Review ever even think of publishing a piece of vulgar trash like this?
EXCERPT:
A POSTMODERN FEMINIST LEGAL MANIFESTO (AN UNFINISHED DRAFT)
Mary Joe Frug
I. PRELIMINARIES
I am worried about the title of this article.
Postmodernism may already be passe, for some readers. Like a shooting star or last night's popovers, its genius was the surprise of its appearance. Once that initial moment has passed, there's not much value in what's left over.
For other readers, postmodernism may refer to such an elaborate and demanding genre -- within linguistics, psychoanalysis, literary theory, and philosophy -- that claiming an affinity to "it" will quite properly invoke a flood of criticism regarding the omissions, misrepresentations, and mistakes that one paper will inevitably make.
The manifesto part may also be troublesome. The dictionary describes a manifesto as a statement of principles or intentions, while I have in mind a rather informal presentation; more of a discussion, say, in which the "principles" are somewhat contradictory and the "intentions" are loosely formulated goals that are qualified by an admission that they might not work. MacKinnon, of course, launched feminism into social theory orbit by drawing on Marxism to present her biting analysis. Referring to one word in a Karl Marx title may represent an acknowledgement of her work, an unconscious, copyKat gesture; but I don't want to get carried away. I am in favor of localized disruptions. I am against totalizing theory.
Sometimes the "PM"s that label my notes remind me of female troubles -- of premenstrual and postmenopausal blues. Maybe I am destined to do exactly what my title prescribes; just note the discomfort and keep going.
* * *
On Style
Style is important in postmodern work. The medium is the message, in some cases -- although by no means all. When style is salient, it is characterized by irony and by wordplay that is often dazzlingly funny, smart, and irreverent. Things aren't just what they seem.
* * *
I confess to having considerable performance anxiety about the postmodern style myself. It may require more art, more creativity and inspiration, than I can manage. But I don't think feminist legal activists need to adopt the postmodern medium in order to exploit the postmodern message; my point about the style is simply that it doesn't require us, strategically, to dismiss postmodernism as an influence on our work.
II. APPLYING POSTMODERN "PRINCIPLES": LAW AND THE FEMALE BODY
* * *
Legal rules permit and sometimes mandate the terrorization of the female body. This occurs by a combination of provisions that inadequately protect women against physical abuse and that encourage women to seek refuge against insecurity. One meaning of "female body," then, is a body that is "in terror," a body that has learned to scurry, to cringe, and to submit. Legal discourse supports that meaning.
* * *
Another meaning of "female body," then, is a body that is "for" sex with men, a body that is "desirable" and also rapable, that wants sex and wants raping. Legal discourse supports that meaning.
* * *
Many feminist critics have argued that the condition of "real" women makes it too early to be post-feminist. * * *
I think this concern is based upon a misperception of where we are in the legal struggle against sexism. I think we are in danger of being politically immobilized by a system for the production of what sex means that makes particular sex differences seem "natural." If my assessment is right, then describing the mechanics of this system is potentially enabling rather than disempowering; it may reveal opportunities for resisting the legal role in producing the radical asymmetry between the sexes.
* * *
B. Sexualization, Terrorization and Maternalization: The Case of Prostitution
* * *
This sexualization of the female body explains an experience many women have: an insistent concern that this outfit, this pose, this gesture may send the wrong signal -- a fear of looking like a whore. Sexy talking, sexy walking, sexy dressing seem sexy, at least in part, because they are the telltale signs of a sex worker plying her trade. This sexualization also explains the shadow many women feel when having sex for unromantic reasons -- to comfort themselves, to avoid a confrontation over some domestic issue, or to secure a favor -- a fear of acting like a whore.
Even sex workers who are "in the life" feel interrogated by the sexualization question; they too struggle against acting like whores. Consider, for example, one sex worker's description of the discomfort she experienced because she sexually responded to her customer during an act of prostitution. Her orgasm in those circumstances broke down a distinction she sought to maintain between her work and the sexual pleasure she obtained from her non-work-related sexual activity. Consider also the many accounts of sex workers who feel degraded or angry about their work; this is an experience of sexual division, a fear that, in their work as whores, they are acting like whores.
* * *
The legal terrorization of prostitutes forces many sex workers to rely on pimps for protection and security, an arrangement which in most cases is also terrorizing. Pimps control when sex workers work, what kind of sex they do for money, and how much they make for doing it; they often use sexual seduction and physical abuse to "manage" the women who work for them. The terrorization of sex workers affects women who are not sex workers by encouraging them to do whatever they can to avoid being asked if they are "for" illegal sex. Indeed, marriage can function as one of these avoidance mechanisms, in that, conventionally, marriage signals that a woman has chosen legal sex over illegal sex.
Once might argue that the terrorized female body is not that much different from the sexualized female body. Both experiences of femininity often -- some might say always -- entail being dominated by a man. Regardless of whether a woman is terrorized or sexualized, there are social incentives to reduce the hardships of her position, either by marrying or by aligning herself with a pimp. In both cases she typically becomes emotionally, financially, physically, and sexually dependent on and subordinate to a man.
* * *
Not all legal feminists believe that prostitutes are terrorized full time. Some feminists -- I'll call this group the liberals -- believe that at least some sex workers, occasionally, exercise sexual autonomy. But these feminists do not favor assimilating sex work into the wage market. They oppose legalization because they object to the kind of sexual autonomy legalization would support. That is, although they support the right of women to do sex work - even at the cost of reinforcing male dominance -- they resist the commodification of women's sexuality.
Sex workers themselves -- who inspire the postmodern position as I develop it here -- want legal support for sex that is severed from its reproduction function and from romance, affection, and long-term relationships.
* * *
I do not think that the sex workers' claims for legalization constitute "the" postmodern feminist legal voice. I am also unsure whether I support their position on legalization. But I believe that my analysis of the decriminalization dispute in which they are participating illustrates how postmodern legal feminism can seek and claim different voices, voices which will challenge the power of the congealed meanings of the female body that legal rules and legal discourse permit and sustain.
* * *
D. The Sexualization of the Female Body: Monogamy, Heterosexuality, Passivity
* * *
I have argued thus far that, by inducing women to marry, by discouraging them from having affairs, and by creating economic and physical conditions that help their sexual partners to impose monogamy on them if they want to, legal rules discourage women from having sex with more than one man. The legal model of female sexual monogamy also gives some women incentives to be more sexually active than they would otherwise be. Sex workers and women who want to be celibate are examples of women whom the sexual monogamy rule system induces into sexual activity.
* * *
Legal rules also coerce some sex workers into having more sex than they might otherwise want to by inadequately protecting them from customer abuse, which can include unwanted sex. In addition, legal rules do not protect sex workers against the demands pimps may make of them for sexual activity. Since sex workers are induced to affiliate with pimps in order to defend themselves against customers and in order to broker their way through the criminal justice system when they are caught up in it, legal rules and law enforcement practices are complicit in imposing more sex on these women than they might have if their work were not illegal and if it were physically safe.
The sexuality of women who want to practice celibacy may not be affected by the rules prohibiting bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution. However, by creating economic and safety incentives for women to marry, legal rules encourage some women to abandon celibacy in favor of marriage. Since legal rules in most states provide that refusal to have sex within marriage constitutes grounds for divorce, legal rules inhibit women who marry because of economic or safety incentives from practicing celibacy within marriage.
Legal rules also create economic and safety incentives for women to sacrifice celibacy in order to have sex with men to whom they are not married. In addition to encouraging women to turn to men for physical protection, legal rules reduce women's ability to pay their own way; the wage market treatment of women makes it hard for them to go "dutch treat." These physical and financial pressures encourage unmarried women to yield to the sexual demands of escorts or companions they have turned to -- at least in part -- for protection against abuse from other men.
Women are induced to choose men rather than women as sexual partners -- to comply with heterosexuality as the model for female sexual conduct -- by legal rules that prohibit sodomy and other sexual acts between individuals of the same sex. Although the criminal rules penalizing homosexual conduct, like the sexual monogamy rules, are not vigorously enforced, decisional law defines marriage as a heterosexual union.
* * *
III. THE POLITICS OF POSTMODERN FEMINISM: LESSONS FROM THE ANTI-
PORNOGRAPHY CAMPAIGN
* * *
For reasons I will soon make clear, I don't particularly regret the anti-pornography ordinance defeat.
* * *
B. Destroying Pornography or Deconstructing It
I now turn to my claim that the ordinance campaign's greatest strength was also its greatest weakness, my claim that the advocates should have sought to deconstruct pornography rather than single-mindedly seeking to destroy it.
The ordinance campaign's most significant contribution to feminism was its pursuit of Catharine MacKinnon's theoretical insight that the oppression of women occurs through sexual subordination. The anti-pornography campaign allowed MacKinnon and others to dramatize what this theory means in practice, through its focus on a complex cultural phenomenon that is exclusively devoted to sex, a cultural practice consumed with depictions of what "the oppression of women through sexual subordination" means. In pornography, women get fucked.
Now, women get "fucked" in the workplace, too, where we do "women's work" for "women's wages," working for male bosses and working on male schedules. We get assigned to this inferior work track because we are identifiable by our sex. In addition, our past and present economic, social, and physical subordination makes us vulnerable to physical abuse at work, on the way there, and on the way back. We are raped at work or on route to work because of our sex, because we are cunts.
But the moment I say women get "fucked" in the workplace, the clarity of the relationship between women's oppression and sex is jeopardized. "Women's work" is a complicated construction; its origin and perpetuation depends on many factors in addition to misogyny. Pornography is a much cleaner site for demonstrating the practice of the theoretical insight; pornography is about women getting fucked.
* * *
Not all pornography is simply about women being fucked. There are some pornographic works in which women fuck, for example; some works in which the objectification of the ejaculating penis is not repeatedly depicted and valorized; and many works in which the subjectivity of a female character is a dominant and successful thematic concern. These works do not depict what the ordinance advocates suggested pornography "is."
* * *
Although many individuals may use pornography for sex instruction, it also seems likely that others use pornography as an implement of fantasy, seeking through their reading or viewing to escape lives characterized by chastity, by routinized sex, or by genderized sex. They may also use pornography to transform their lives by a more complicated reaction than simple imitation.
Users would not be interested in or sexually aroused by many forms of pornography is they reacted only by identifying with same-sex characters. Works like sexually explicit formula romances, for example, in which a woman is the principal sexual subject, would most likely be sexually arousing to a male user only if he identified with the female heroine, thereby relinquishing his sex-stereotyped desires to fuck and fantasizing himself instead as fuckee. Similarly, the appeal of lesbian and gay pornography seems to depend on more than mechanistic same-sex identification, in that users must select differences other than biological sex to identify with particular characters.
* * *
Um, 4:25/4:26/5:04, that was my whole point. Purely out-of-state vendors don't have to pay the sales tax. That's a point that you just acknowledged in 5:04. Thus, there is no tax penalty against consumption (which 1:49 tried to argue the sales tax was) if one cares to avoid it by buying online.
Also, you don't pay the sales or use tax on a 1040. The 1040 is a federal form, and, in case you don't know, only states collect sales or use taxes. Instead of using big numbers to sound impressive, it is better for you to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Nothing I said is wrong, so don't try to tell me to read New York tax legislation. You are the one who said "sales tax is still charged here for goods purchased online, even if purchased from another state" with no mention that the law covers only a small subset of online vendors.
The use tax is not a sales tax. The use tax is a broader tax that can be triggered by both sales and non-sales, so it's comparing apples and oranges. But given your tax ignorance (e.g., paying state sales taxes on a form 1040) this oversight is not surprising.
And the whole critique about sales taxes is moot because my original hypothetical about marginal utility applies to a person that could be in any state, such as the states without sales taxes. Not everyone in the US lives in New York.
Or just spend your money on most services and buy goods from garage sales, plus groceries, medicine and cheap clothes from stores. Voila, no sales tax ever.
“OBAMA’S DIRTY DOZEN”
As I mentioned last night, according to Noam Scheiber at the New Republic, Susan Estrich (a former Harvard Law Review president and leading Democratic party activist, and thus hardly a McCain shill) and several editors who worked with Obama on the Review believe Obama’s campaign may well be lying in asserting that Obama published nothing of his own during his two years on the Review, even though each editor is guaranteed the opportunity to publish three pieces:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/06/23/did-obama-write-something-for-the-harvard-law-review.aspx
Also, there are indications that the current Review leadership is reluctant to name the authors of current pieces which have come under attack, for fear of being asked about the authorship of pieces by past editors, a policy which only makes sense if what’s really going on is that the Review is trying to keep quiet on what, exactly, Obama wrote while on the Review (aside from Obama, who cares what any past editor wrote?). See here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/06/follow_up_on_phil_telfeyan.php#comment-609917
All of which gets me thinking: what, exactly, is the Obama campaign trying to hide? Assume Obama wrote 1, 2, or 3 pieces while on the Review. Why would the Obama campaign lie and say he wrote nothing? That is, what might Obama have written back in 1990-91 that his campaign might not want to fess up to now? It’s hardly an abstract question; all you need to do is thumb through Volume 104 of the Review.
Let me save you the trouble. I spotted a bunch of pieces I sure wouldn’t want to admit to having written if I were running for President of the United States, especially if I were rated the most liberal Senator, was couching myself as someone interested in transcending racial issues, and was targeting voters in Bible-clinging, gun-toting “red states.” I’ve taken a rough cut and whittled them down (at the risk of possibly missing a zinger or two) to twelve – call them “Obama’s Dirty Dozen.”
Even if it turns out Obama’s campaign is actually telling the truth, so that the final word is that Obama isn't just the worst Review president in decades (objectively measured by citation counts) but the laziest ever (the first never to publish anything in the journal he ran), by Obama’s own admission he oversaw the writing of these pieces, approved them for publication, and did final edits on most of them. So either way, the unsigned student pieces carrying Obama’s fingerprints, which comprise “Obama’s Dirty Dozen,” deserve some attention.
Here are “Obama’s Dirty Dozen," grouped by type of piece.
First we have six “Notes,” about 20 pages in length:
1. “Sex, especially adultery, is fun” note. Seriously. Just look at page 1660. Or, if you’re too lazy to go down to the law library, just click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bkn44wdn2oy
Among other things, this note argues that there’s a constitutional right to commit adultery. On the first page, it says: “Sex is undoubtedly the world’s oldest recreational activity,” and that it “can be enormously fun . . . .” Apparently Obama was quite a player, at least in his 1L year before he met Michelle (at least with white women), so it seems quite possible he wrote this. I guess if he did, he sure wouldn’t want to admit it now. Even if he didn’t write it, it’s amazing that as president, Obama allowed the prestige of the Review to be put behind such crap.
2. “Redefine the family" note. Page 1640. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?hytrjz2wlcm
This note didn’t just come out in favor of gay marriage (“committed, interdependent homosexual partnerships,” p. 1658) but argued even more broadly that the whole concept of a “family” should be redefined “for individuals in nontraditional relationships” (p. 1657), that is, “less familiar kinds of relationships” (p. 1659). Not sure exactly what Obama, or whoever wrote this under his supervision, meant, but I doubt “family values” voters would be impressed by any of this.
3. “Pro IRA terrorist" note. Page 1878. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?1bzen3ntim2
This note took the side of Joseph Patrick Doherty, an IRA terrorist. The Attorney General argued he had discretion to deny Doherty asylum, so that he could be deported to the U.K. in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy objectives, like, you know, the idea that terrorists should face justice. The note argued the Attorney General should be able to deport terrorists like Doherty. I guess if Obama wrote this note, he wouldn’t want to admit it now, what with all the complaints being made about his associations with various former terrorists during the past decade.
4. “Black and male" note. Page 749. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?dm3b9zmtmdl
Obama says he wants to helps us all transcend race, but whoever wrote this note seems pretty obsessed about it. For example, an introductory quote: “But they ain’t took the black off of your face.” The note argues that black women have gotten solid protection against race discrimination in employment, but black men need special help because of “subtle, unique, and pernicious manifestations of prejudice perpetrated against” them (p. 749). Kinda funny to argue that men of any race have a rawer deal than women of the same race (what would black women think about this argument?). Even funnier to have this sort of thing published while the president of the Review was a black male (especially given that in the 17 years since, there’s never been a black female president of the Review). It would be funnier still if this was actually written by Obama.
5. “Judicial activism in school finance note.” Page 1072. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?q91vbywlcwm
Less sexy than the first four, but it basically argues that state court judges should be judicial activists on school funding, and take over from legislatures. If Obama wrote this, it would tend to highlight McCain’s point about the activist judges Obama obviously would appoint if elected.
6. “Judicial activism in international law" note. Page 1269. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?nx2lmmm3yjx
Argues, similarly, that courts should be more activist in enforcing international law in lawsuits brought against the federal government and state governments. Similar problem for Obama in terms of advocating judicial activism if it turns out he wrote this.
Next we have three “book notes,” about 6 pages in length:
7. “Living constitution" book note. Page 645. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ktt3x1dp2yg
This book notes attacks a particular “original intent” school of constitutional interpretation, and argues for “occasional judicial activism” (p. 649). Same concern for Obama as the two prior items.
8. “Pro affirmative action" book note. Page 1711. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?10xonxyzdbi
This book note analyzes a book by Roy Brooks which focuses on ways by which African-Americans can improve their lot by self help. It suggests that what is really needed is more affirmative action. If it turns out that Obama wrote this, I’m sure it would provide fodder for a variety of questions.
9. “Niggers" book note. Seriously: the title is “Talking of Unconscionable Niggers . . .” Page 1949. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ugxdadblj9q
Same concern for Obama as # 4, above. The writer seems obsessed with race and racial injustice, attacking a biography of Frederick Douglass written by white historian William McFeely. The book ended up receiving the prestigious Lincoln Prize, but the writer of this book note felt it disrespected “the history of nineteenth century Black people generally” by focusing too closely on Douglass (the subject of the book) and his “white contemporaries” (i.e., the politicians and other leaders who made up the power structure with whom Douglass had to deal to accomplish anything) (p. 1949). The writer is upset that McFeely discusses Douglass’s intellect (is “peculiarly fixated on” it, p. 1951, supposedly). Prefiguring the Obama camp’s criticism of Joe Biden, the writer especially takes umbrage at McFeely calling Douglass “articulate”! (P. 1951). It would be embarrassing for Obama if it turned out he wrote this, especially because the writing style is so awkward it suggests a high school student authored it. Doesn't look like Obama did much if any editing on this piece (maybe the contemporaneous reports of his fellow editors, which were written up in a 1994 book I quoted in a comment on the Volokh blog, to the effect that Obama was regarded as lazy with the blue pencil, are correct).
Finally, to round out the “dirty dozen,” we have three “case comments,” each running about 10 pages:
10. “Pro teen abortion" case comment. Page 247. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bjiy9gj1oj0
Argues that the Supreme Court was wrong in upholding, by a 6-to-3 vote, a Minnesota law which permitted underage girls to get abortions, but only with the permission of both parents or (in case one parent was an abuser, or unreasonable), with the approval of a judge. If it turns out Obama wrote this, it probably would not go over very well in the red states in which he’s currently advertising.
11. “Pro drug use" case comment. Page 198. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?hfxizmgdmhx
Attacks a recent Supreme Court decision, arguing that Native Americans have a constitutional right to use peyote. The pro-peyote analysis gets into quite a bit of detail, arguing there’s a “complete lack of evidence establishing any physical harm from peyote use,” and noting “society’s toleration of numerous other drugs, such as caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine” (p. 207). It could be awkward for Obama if it turns out he wrote this. It’s one thing for Obama, in his private life, to have a little weed, maybe some blow (I think he confessed to something like that), etc. It would be quite another thing if Obama wrote up his pro-drug-use preferences, likening drug use to the use of coffee, beer, and cigarettes, and published his analysis in the pages of the Harvard Law Review.
12. “Smokers are psycho" case comment. Page 1723. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?o5dnetennjn
This case comment criticizes a New Jersey court decisions permitting smokers to file product liability cases against tobacco companies. It would be ironic if it turned out Obama wrote this piece, especially given its points that smokers are well aware of the risk that cigarettes will kill them (pp. 1726-27), and that “[t]his willingness to risk death . . . is psychologically incoherent and illusory,” pointing to a “psychological inability to confront one’s own death” (p. 1729). If Obama wrote this, or even edited it, was he somehow admitting to being a psychological cripple? At the time it was published, and apparently for a decade and a half afterwards, Obama was a chain-smoking Marlboro smoker. Why, despite focusing on this issue in 1991 (either as a writer or editor) didn’t Obama get his head on straight and deal with this issue prior to running for president? It would be interesting if someone asked him about this.
Baker’s Dozen?
Okay, I can’t resist a final item – make it a baker’s dozen. It’s suggested by a comment in a recent New Statesman article (U.K. paper), which mentioned “a scathing dismissal of a book by Roy Grutman, a great courtroom advocate . . . .”
http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/06/law-review-obama-usa-vote
13. “Anti money grubbing" book note. Page 1154. Or click here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?gy1jdtnmpdz
I agree with the New Statesman that this one-paragraph book note sounds exactly like Obama. It even uses the word “folk,” one of his favorite words, then and now. It reviews a book by two lawyers called “Lawyers and Thieves,” and it basically attacks the authors for their premise “that money is what makes the legal world go ‘round . . . .” It would be ironic if Obama wrote this book note, given his recent decision to forego his commitment to public funding of the general election campaign on the basis that he could collect much more money by opting out, and that money is what makes the political world go around.
Hope you’ve enjoyed “Obama’s Dirty Dozen.”
Whoever posted the defense of the posthumous attack on Frug, and excerpts of her article, is sick. I'm surprised to see such fervent hatred of feminists in the year 2008.
According to "Revue Critic," who I suppose was on the Harv. L. Rev. when the Frug article was published, and who I further suppose was one of the liberals who voted to publish it and is still smarting from what evidently was an effective parody, the mastermind behind the parody of her article was none other than Paul Clement, who just finished up as Solicitor General of the United States.
That can't be true, can it? Paul Clement, right-wing evil-doer? A politically savvy guy like that getting mixed up in a messy attack on politically correct scholarship? Personally drafting sexually themed attacks on members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? I don't buy it -- for one thing, Clement's enemies, if any (I suppose Revue Critic is one) would have raised this when Clement was nominated to be SG, if it were true.
I suppose other editors who served with Clement could readily confirm or, more likely, deny this assertion about someone who now is a fairly important legal figure. Perhaps a really talented, aggressive, serious investigative reporter -- you know, like David Lat -- needs to get on this pronto!
I don't understand the mystery or disagreement about what Obama wrote while on the Review, or about who did what on the parody issue attacking Frug. It's not like there's no way to get to the bottom of this. The editors on the Review during the relevant year(s) have the answers. Someone simply needs to do the following:
1. Turn to the list of editors for the relevant year.
2. Google or otherwise find the e-mail and/or phone number for the first editor.
3. E-mail and/or write that editor asking the relevant questions.
4. Go to next name. Repeat.
5. Once you've run through all the names, report on the results.
It might be boring and time-consuming, and it might not be worth doing in the first place. But it would not be difficult to get answers to these questions.
Yeah, or "someone" (e.g., 5:44) could get a life. Or, better yet, jump off a bridge.
"Review Critic": if you just wanted to remind people about the terrible, evil, Frug parody and the 10 editors who got caught up in the feminist-fueled scandal over it, you could have just linked to this article:
http://www.thecrimson.com:80/article.aspx?ref=226119
This one's pretty good, too:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6D7163CF934A25757C0A964958260
Nice try using Politico's reference to David Ellen as an excuse to spew forth about the Frug parody, but if you were really interested in clearing Ellen, you'd have pointed out that Ellen's term as president ended in February, and the Revue wasn't put together until a month later. The transition was fully completed before the Revue began to be drafted; by tradition, Ellen no longer had any official role in anything involving the Review (or the Revue).
So that makes it the "Revue 9." Janis Kestenbaum and Edith Ramirez didn't even read the Frug parody before it came out -- as liberals who'd supported publishing Frug's commentary, they felt, appropriately so, that they shouldn't be involved in reviewing a parody whose main point was to parody them and other liberals.
So that makes it the "Revue 7." Glad you've reminded us of their names. But so what? Yes, Paul Clement was the main guy in charge and yes, in that capacity, he did rewrites and editing on the Frug parody, in addition to writing a hilarious send up of Ted Kennedy, others on the Sen. Judiciary Committee, Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas and, yes, Charles Ogletree.
And sure, you're upset Clement never was "outed" as partly responsible for the Frug parody, and he went on to bigger and better things (and might well end up on the Supreme Court).
But you're a little late, I'd say. I assume you were on the Review (indeed, I think I have a pretty good idea of who you are). If so, you might remember that we had a big, long meeting in April, 1992, and had a little thing called a "vote," under which we agreed the Review as an institution would apologize and be held accountable, and we voted not to expel or censure anyone involved, force them to identify their exact role, or apologize, etc., regarding the Frug parody.
(Ironically, the only member of Vol. 105 who ever got censured was president Emily Schulman who got censured the next year for trying to do her job of putting out a high-quality journal, even if that meant making politically incorrect decisions to give less responsibility to lesser-qualified editors who happened to be African-Americans who benefited from affirmative action in getting on the Review -- but that's another story).
If you were on the losing side of the vote over whether or not to punish the "Revue 7," too bad. But there's no reason to be unearthing ancient history at this point regarding whether those involved got enough of a public spanking.
As an illustration of the fact that nobody cares anymore about such finger-pointing, you might check out this article about how Paul Clement sailed through his confirmation hearing without any trouble on account of the Frug parody:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=898
In a phrase: "Get over it."
Dude, Lat or Sophist - whoever the heck is in charge - you need to get some control over this blog. Cutting and pasting long articles on here is obstructive. Learn to hyperlink people!
And as a rule, any post more than three paragraphs should be deleted.
The comments don't look cut and pasted from other places. They just look like long comments by people are are obsessed about stuff most people don't care about. But that's just Harvard law review editors for you, I guess.
SENATOR OBAMA, PLEASE LET AMERICA IN ON YOUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS CONCERNING THIS US JUDICIAL INJUSTICE ???
LETS ALL HOPE OUR MEDIA FRIENDS ALSO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS POSSIBLE FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????
**WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL HORROR CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????
*** WHEN GOD’S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????
**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.
****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.
This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!
Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!
For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.
It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.
This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!
***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!
A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.
** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !
lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com (424-247-2013) By Douglas Field
SENATOR OBAMA, ANOTHER POSSIBLE INNOCENT poorer black american NEEDS YOUR VOICE OF JUSTICE ???
DOES GOD NEED TO LOBBY OUR US CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD ON BEHALF OF OUR POORER AMERICAN’S SENATOR OBAMA,OR ARE YOU WATCHING OUT FOR THEM ??
***SURELY OUR US CONGRESS & US SUPREME COURT BOTH KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STATE MURDER IN GEORGIA, OR
A POSSIBLE EXECUTION IN GEORGIA THIS WEEK ???
OUR US CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD CONTINUE TO DENY MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING POOR AMERICANS PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION EVEN THOUGH WRONGFUL EXECUTIONS & FALSE INCARCERATIONS CONTINUE ALL ACROSS AMERICA ???
*** 700 BILLION $$$ AVAILABLE FOR US BAILOUT, & NO $$$ FOR ALL POORER AMERICANS PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION ???????
WHERE ARE AMERICA ‘S RELIGIOUS LEADERS ??
SENATOR OBAMA, THIS JUDICIAL INJUSTICE HAS BECOME AN AMERICAN ART FORM, AND NO LONGER CAN BE KEPT HIDDEN OR SECRET FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVEN IF CERTAIN (501c3) U$ RELIGIOU$ LEADER$ HAVE BEEN $ILENCED ??
LETS ALL HOPE OUR MEDIA FRIENDS CONTINUE TO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING AMERICA’S LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????
WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL INJUSTICE CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK & LATINO AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????
*** WHEN GOD’S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????
**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.
****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.
This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!
Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus with our US FEDERAL COURTS and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!
For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.
It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.
This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!
***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!
A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.
** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !
lawyersforpooramericans @ yahoo.com
(424-247-2013)
AMERICA'S JUDICIAL SYSTEM NEEDS....C*H*A*N*G*E......
SENATOR OBAMA PLEASE LET THIS COUNTRIES VOTERS KNOW YOUR FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT A NEEDED FUTURE REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF OUR BROKEN JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT CONTINUES TO ALLOW THE EXECUTION'S OF EVEN POSSIBLE INNOCENT AMERICAN’S LIKE TROY DAVIS OF GEORGIA ?????
BEING THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD SENATOR OBAMA, DON'T WE NEED AS THE LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD TO BEGIN ONCE AGAIN TO RE-INVEST THE PROPER MONIE$ IN OUR OWN US JUDICIAL SYSTEM, ASSURING ALL OF OUR CITIZENS THEIR RIGHTS TO FAIR TRIALS WITH PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION ???
DOES GOD NEED TO LOBBY OUR US CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD ON BEHALF OF OUR poorer american’s SENATOR OBAMA,OR ARE YOU WATCHING OUT FOR THEM ?? ***OUR US CONGRESS CONTINUES TO DENY MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING POOR AMERICANS PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION EVEN THOUGH WRONGFUL EXECUTIONS & FALSE INCARCERATIONS CONTINUE ALL ACROSS AMERICA ???
*** 700 BILLION $$$ AVAILABLE FOR US BAILOUT, & NO $$$ FOR ALL POORER AMERICANS PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION ?
SENATOR OBAMA, THIS JUDICIAL INJUSTICE HAS BECOME AN AMERICAN ART FORM, AND NO LONGER CAN BE KEPT HIDDEN OR SECRET FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVEN IF CERTAIN (501c3) U$ RELIGIOU$ LEADER$ HAVE BEEN $ILENCED ??
LETS ALL HOPE OUR MEDIA FRIENDS CONTINUE TO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING AMERICA’S LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????
WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL INJUSTICE CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK & LATINO AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????
*** WHEN GOD’S FACE BECAME VERY RED *** THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????
**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS ! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.
****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY **** The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
***WHERE ARE AMERICA'S RELIGIOUS LEADERS ???????
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.
This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!
Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus with our US FEDERAL COURTS and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!
For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.
It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.
This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World! ***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY !
A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO 2) GOOGLE MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.
** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !
***Someone please tell our US Congress that the GED degree that Manny Gonzales acquired in prison is not a LAW DEGREE !!!!!!
lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com (424-247-2013) BY DOUGLAS FIELD
No wonder this country is going down the tubes.
We have another affirmative action lawyer who is a racist and against every principle and value upon which this country was founded who may be elected our next president.
Both Obama and Michelle are wealthy through the guilt of white America and through their associations with the enemies of America who have always been embraced by the radical left.
Harvard has degenerated into a radical leftwing brainwashing and indoctrinating institution that doesn't serve liberal education any more than the majority of U.S. universities and colleges who have been infiltrated by the likes of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
This once prestigious university has sold out its soul.