Blogger: Voyages>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º> - Edit post

Blogger: Voyages>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º> - Edit post:

'via Blog this'

Human rights in China : The Lancet

Shanghai's shopping street
Nanjing East Rd.

Human rights in China : The Lancet:

On May 14, the Information Office of the State Council—China's cabinet—published Progress in China's Human Rights in 2012. The cabinet's white paper assesses human rights achievements through the lens of development: “Development is the key to solving all existing problems and facilitating progress of human rights in China.” The report reviews economic and social achievements as progress in human rights. It also lists improvements in living standards, stresses the achievements of lifting millions of Chinese out of poverty, raising annual incomes, improving education, housing, health insurance coverage, and access to health, and decreasing mortality of children younger than 5 years ahead of the Millennium Development Goals deadline. Acknowledging the scale of the threat to people's right to live in a clean and sustainable environment, the report devotes an entire section to ecological quality. Although the abolition of the death penalty is not discussed, there is a substantial reduction in the number of situations in which a defendant could face such a penalty.Physical and mental health are mentioned in the white paper, providing an opportunity for health professionals in China to improve human rights in many important ways. First, by making health and high-quality care a human right. Second, by seeking protection of their own rights, which too often have been violated by dissatisfied patients and their families. Third, by defending the rights of their patients, including sex workers, who allegedly face coercive testing for HIV according to another report, Swept Away: Abuses against Sex Workers in China, published by Human Rights Watch on May 14.Progress on human rights depends on openness, which makes China's white paper welcome and marks an important stage in the evolution of rights for its people. China has made colossal progress to improve economic and health standards. Further advances, like those announced by the cabinet for human rights, are encouraged—particularly for groups for whom progress in development alone might not be important enough.

'via Blog this'

An end to the"global war on terror" - President Obama

An end to the "global war on terror", declared President Obama at the National Defense University. - GWC

Fact Sheet
Full Text of the May 23, 2013 speech

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' - but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived here at home. And for a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. And then, on September 11, 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire and metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could.
And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What is clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. And this carried significant consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and -- to this day -- our interests in a vital region.

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

So after I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda but we also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

More evidence that Washington is addicted to spending: Skagit River bridge - I-5, Washington State

Deficit fighters fought Obama's American Jobs Act and won.  Tragically for the passengers in the cars on I-5 when the bridge fell.

English in 21 accents - Amy Walker

English in 21 accents. 
Excellent diction demonstration by Amy Walker - an American actress. 

Beyond Chinglish - English in many accents

中国人模仿9国人说英语(日本韩国印度英国法国意大利美国俄罗斯中国）
A talented young Chinese guy speaks English with multiple accents.  They are, in order, Japanese,Korean, Indian, British, French, Italy, American, Russian).

Not Just the NFL: Compensation, Litigation, and Public Health in Concussion Cases by John Culhane :: SSRN

Not Just the NFL: Compensation, Litigation, and Public Health in Concussion Cases by John Culhane :: SSRN:

This article examines the recent attention given to traumatic head injury in the National Football League from a public health perspective. It notes that injuries are prevalent in many sports (not just football), and argues that the goal should be to design interventions that reduce the incidence and severity of such injuries. The article explores and evaluates some of the measures that have been taken throughout football (from the NFL down through youth leagues) to make the sport safer, and notes how these steps also affect other sports and injuries to other parts of the body. Since football and other dangerous sports are unlikely to be eliminated, harm reduction should be the goal. Taken together, these measures are likely to be successful by that measure.
The article concludes with some observations about the use and limitations of tort claims and compensation funds to redress the harms caused by participation in dangerous sports such as football.

'via Blog this'

Christians Must Confront Scientific Illiteracy - ReligiousLeftLaw.com

Fr. Georges LeMaitre

And it all started with a big bang.  Who knew that a Catholic priest was behind that now accepted theory?  Not me. - GWC
Christians Must Confront Scientific Illiteracy - ReligiousLeftLaw.com:
by Charles Reid

"But of them all, my own favorite is the unjustly obscure Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), the "father of the big bang." A Belgian priest, Fr. Lemaitre did his graduate work in theoretical physics at Cambridge University and Harvard. In 1927, while still a junior lecturer at the Catholic University of Louvain, he proposed an expansionary theory of the universe at odds with the then-prevailing belief that the universe had always existed in a steady state. Four years later, in 1931, he asserted that the entire universe began with what he called a "cosmic egg" or "primeval atom" -- a theory that Sir Fred Hoyle derisively dismissed as "the big bang." Later that same year, Fr. Lemaitre argued that not only was the universe expanding, its expansion was accelerating in speed. While it has taken decades, Lemaitre's theories have been confirmed in every major particular."

'via Blog this'

Learning English Pronunciation

Steve Martin would like to buy a dimburger..

DOJ IG: Report on Justice Lawyer's Leak of Confidential Information re `Fast and Furious'

Every Department of the federal government has an internal audit office called the Inspector General. (OIG)  The Department of Justice IG has issued a report that sharply criticises Dennis Burke, former United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, and referred the matter to the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility for leaking a memorandum to Fox News and the New York Times.  The memo related to James Dodson - an ATF agent and witness in the investigation of the ATF gun-buying scheme known as `Fast and Furious'.
Burke - who resigned early in the investigation - was already under investigation for another leak.  Yet, according to the OIG he not only leaked material without permission, he misled investigators who asked him about it.
The DOJ maintains its own `private' disciplinary office (OPR) which in practices preempts action by the state licensing authorities who are the source of the law license of every lawyer in the country.  [The OPR process has been criticised in the Yale Law Journal online by Professor Green for excessive secrecy.] The OIG's report here asks OPR to investigate Burke's conduct and to determine if the former prosecutor violated the rules of professional conduct of "any state bar of which he is a member".

Did he? RPC 3.3 - Candor to the tribunal comes to mind - but the OIG is not a tribunal.  The former "appearance of impropriety standard" served as a catch-all, but it is gone.  How about RPC 3.8 special responsibilities of a prosecutor?


from the OIG report's conclusions:

In sum, we found that Burke violated Department policy when he provided the Dodson memorandum to Fox News reporter Levine without Department approval, and that his explanations for why he did not believe his actions were improper were not credible. We believe this misconduct to be particularly egregious because of Burke’s apparent effort to undermine the credibility of Dodson’s significant public disclosures about the failures in Operation Fast and Furious. We further believe that the seriousness of Burke’s actions are aggravated by the fact that they were taken within days after he told Deputy Attorney General Cole that he took responsibility for his office’s earlier unauthorized disclosure of a document to The New York Times, and after Cole put him on notice that such disclosures should not occur. Burke also knew at the time of his disclosure of the Dodson memorandum that he was under investigation by OPR for his conduct in connection with the earlier disclosure to The New York Times.
As a high-level Department official, Burke knew his obligations to abide by Department policies and his duty to follow the instructions of the Deputy Attorney General, who was Burke’s immediate supervisor.We found Burke’s conduct in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to be inappropriate for a Department employee and wholly unbefitting a U.S. Attorney. We are referring to OPR our finding that Burke violated Department policy in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to a member of the media for a determination of whether Burke’s conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for the state bars in which Burke is a member.

  DOJ OIG Report On Fast And Furious Whistleblower Leak by tpmdocs

Obama gets personal at Morehouse | xpostfactoid

update: Sprung responds to Ta-Nehisi Coates  criticism of Obama.

Andrew Sprung is, in my opinion, our best analyst of President Obama's rhetoric. James Fallows runs a close second, but Sprung is more focused. Here he looks at Obama's commencement address at Morehouse College - a Black, men's school. He is addressing an audience of graduate Black men as a Black man. The long quote after the link is the President. The link will give you Sprung's annotated text.

Sprung observes:

Reading this was for me one of those moments, which occur from time to time, when I am stupefied afresh that a man who can speak, and think, and feel like that, is president of the United States.On the personal side, this was both a boast and an anti-boast. The president of the United States effectively claimed a mantle as our empath-in-chief.
Obama also very pointedly addressed the Morehouse Men as men. He was able to do this in large part simply by being factual - he was addressing a class of men only

Obama gets personal at Morehouse | xpostfactoid:

"As Morehouse Men, many of you know what it’s like to be an outsider; know what it’s like to be marginalized; know what it’s like to feel the sting of discrimination. And that’s an experience that a lot of Americans share. Hispanic Americans know that feeling when somebody asks them where they come from or tell them to go back. Gay and lesbian Americans feel it when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love that they share. Muslim Americans feel it when they’re stared at with suspicion because of their faith. Any woman who knows the injustice of earning less pay for doing the same work — she knows what it’s like to be on the outside looking in.

So your experiences give you special insight that today’s leaders need. If you tap into that experience, it should endow you with empathy — the understanding of what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes, to see through their eyes, to know what it’s like when you’re not born on 3rd base, thinking you hit a triple. It should give you the ability to connect. It should give you a sense of compassion and what it means to overcome barriers.

And I will tell you, Class of 2013, whatever success I have achieved, whatever positions of leadership I have held have depended less on Ivy League degrees or SAT scores or GPAs, and have instead been due to that sense of connection and empathy — the special obligation I felt, as a black man like you, to help those who need it most, people who didn’t have the opportunities that I had — because there but for the grace of God, go I — I might have been in their shoes. I might have been in prison. I might have been unemployed. I might not have been able to support a family. And that motivates me. (Applause.)

So it’s up to you to widen your circle of concern — to care about justice for everybody, white, black and brown. Everybody. Not just in your own community, but also across this country and around the world. To make sure everyone has a voice, and everybody gets a seat at the table; that everybody, no matter what you look like or where you come from, what your last name is — it doesn’t matter, everybody gets a chance to walk through those doors of opportunity if they are willing to work hard enough."

'via Blog this'

Justice Albin: Protect Our Courts from Politics

Barry Albin, Associate Justice
Supreme Court of New Jersey

Gavel Grab » New Jersey Judge: Protect Our Courts from Politics:
At the New Jersey State Bar Association's annual meeting in (of course) Atlantic City,  Associate Justice Barry Albin delivered a strong speech about the importance of protecting impartial courts from political influence. He called on the public to protect judges from the government’s other two branches.

Justice Albin, a target of Governor Chris Christie, appeared to address some controversies involving Christie, although he did not actually name the governor.

“When one judge is punished for issuing an unpopular decision, other judges take notice and may be less inclined to invite controversy, perhaps at the expense of the fundamental rights of some disfavored group,” Justice Albin said, according to a (Newark) Star-Ledger article. “A judge should not be concerned about whether doing justice is a bad career move.”

In 2010, Christie, a Republican, refused to reappoint Democratic appointee Justice John Wallace Jr. (see Gavel Grab). It was the first time a New Jersey governor did not reappoint a justice who had sought it since the state constitution was rewritten 63 years earlier, and it provoked a mass resignation of his judicial advisory council and widespread charges that the newly-elected governor was jeopardizing judicial independence.

'via Blog this'

Obama's Enemies List? The IRS Scandal

Since we are about to be treated to a marathon Fox News extravaganza about liberal oppression of patriots via the IRS - the government's least popular agency, here is the Inspector General's Report.

  Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to 

 Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review

by Eric Lach

Disclosure of all favorable evidence by federal prosecutors urged in new study by Bruce Green

former New Orleans  D.A. Connick's
office has been successfully challenged
over a dozen times for suppression of
evidence  AP photo

Prompted by the disclosure that U.S. Justice Department lawyers hid favorable evidence from the defense in the  prosecution of the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) last year sponsored  the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act of 2012.  The measure had bi-partisan support including from the late Sen. Daniel Inouye.  But the bill died in committee and has not been introduced again this term.   Its premise is simple.  It goes beyond the constitutional mandate of Brady v. Maryland to disclose materially exculpatory evidence, a highly subjective and therefore problematic judgment, to declare a "Duty To Disclose Favorable Information":

"In a criminal prosecution brought by the United States, the attorney for the Government shall provide to the defendant any covered information--‘(1) that is within the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution team; or
‘(2) the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence would become known, to the attorney for the Government."

Violation would enable a range of discretionary remedies including court costs, adjournments, disclosure, new trial, and imposition of attorneys fees and costs by the United States if it is  found to be in violation of the duty.  In a new study in the Mercer Law Review Fordham law professor Bruce Green urges adoption of the "favorable evidence" standard. 

The proposed favorable evidence standard calls for only a modest expansion of prosecutors’disclosure obligations.  That is far less demanding than the “open file” discovery required by law in some states and employed in some other states  as a matter of common practice.  And it is far short of the North Carolina statute which provides

Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order: The State to make available to the defendant the complete files of all law enforcement agencies, investigatory agencies, and prosecutors’ offices involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution
of the defendant.

Viewing evidence through the eyes of the defense - as to what is exculpatory - is obviously problematic since prosecutors, like others, see things their own way, not the adversary's way.  Even the office of the New Orleans District Attorney  admitted before the Supreme Court that thirteen convictions had been overturned for `Brady violations' during the reign of former Prosecutor Harry Connick.  Despite such evidence the U.S. Department of Justice resists the change.  

At hearings last year on the Murkowski bill Deputy Attorney General James Cole said that the DOJ allows disclosure in excess of the constitutional minimum "as a matter of discretion".  To us that is precisely the problem.  What governs the exercise of discretion? In this regard the Murkowski bill was quite cautious.  The bill does not go so far as to declare a right to all relevant evidence (a standard narrower than a civil party's right to anything reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence). But  specifying all "favorable evidence" would advance the defendant’s interest in making a well-informed decision whether to plead guilty and, if the defendant went to trial, it would enhance  the chances of an effective defense. Perhaps, Green suggests, we are witnessing the old "sporting competition" attitude rather than the view that the prosecutor's duty is to justice, not to chalk up wins.

The need for a revised `ex ante' standard  is particularly acute because the avenues of relief even after disclosure are so unpromising.  In Kyles v. Whitley (1995) the Supreme Court directed that non-disclosed evidence be considered in its entirety.  If its suppression has a “ ‘reasonable probability’ ” of changing the result, it is "material".  That is an invitation to findings of "harmless error". Nor does the 1984 Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance of counsel cover much territory.  Lawyers who have been denied favorable evidence are bound to be ineffective.  Strickland requires an error by the defense lawyer and a  lack of "confidence" in the result to merit relief.

Thus judges reviewing a conviction - in the rare case when favorable evidence is later discovered - will give substantial weight to examining the overall fairness of the judgment of guilt.  Appellate  judgment is inevitably colored by the fact-finding and the deference given fact-finders.  Further, public safety and concerns about cost and in favor of finality of judgment also weigh against successful appeals based on nondisclosure  of evidence.

The focus therefore should be on preemptive `ex ante' measures to assure fairness.  Should we ask of prosecutors the constitutional minimum, or should we embrace the proposed statutory regime which makes favorable information disclosure presumptive - subject to reasonable exceptions such as witness security and public safety presumptive?  What is needed, as Green suggests is empirical data.  That is available.  One can compare the federal courts with the record in states and locales where disclosure of favorable evidence or of all evidence in state files is required.  We thus already have, Green argues, a kind of successful natural experiment.  This is the sort of study which Congress could ask the GAO to undertake.  If Senator Murkowski re-introduced the measure the Senate Judiciary Committee could ask the GAO to commission such a study.

Bruce A. Green Federal Criminal Discovery - a Legislative Approach

‘The Federalist Society,’ by Michael Avery and Danielle McLaughlin - NYTimes.com

‘The Federalist Society,’ by Michael Avery and Danielle McLaughlin - NYTimes.com:
review by Jeffrey Rosen
“There is much that citizens from all points on the ideological spectrum can learn from the story of the Federalist Society,” Avery and McLaughlin conclude. And indeed there is. Although they don’t spell out the lessons for liberals, at least two emerge from the data they present. First, the various strands of legal liberalism — civil libertarians, Great Society liberals, neoprogressive technocrats, economic populists and advocates of equal rights on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation — would do well to set aside their ideological differences and converge around a common approach to constitutional interpretation that citizens can understand. And second, if liberals want to take the courts back from conservatives, they have to recognize that ideas — and judicial appointments — matter.

'via Blog this'

This FAA Sequester Vote Doesn’t Smell Right | Jared Bernstein | On the Economy

Heading to the airport in the morning, bound for China, glad the flight will be on time, but....
This FAA Sequester Vote Doesn’t Smell Right | Jared Bernstein | On the Economy:

× Jobless workers losing unemployment benefits. Sequestration requires every state to cut benefits for the long-term unemployed. So far, roughly 800,000 workers in 19 states have seen their benefits cut by…about $120 a month, on average. When all states implement these cuts, they will affect as many as 3.8 million jobless workers.
× Children losing Head Start. …Already, some Head Start programs are cutting their programs for the current school year — dropping children from the program, ending the school year several weeks early, or cutting services such as bus transportation. These cuts can leave families scrambling to find alternatives for their children. The Associated Press reports, for example:

“At least two Indiana Head Start programs have resorted to a random drawing to determine which three-dozen preschool students will be removed from the education program for low-income families, a move officials said was necessary to limit the impact of mandatory across-the-board federal spending cuts.”

× Seniors losing Meals on Wheels. Some seniors programs in various states are cutting the number of home-delivered meals provided or seniors served. In central Maine, for example, the agency on aging has started a waiting list for seniors and cut the number of weekly visits to seniors receiving meals from two to one.
× Low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities losing housing assistance. CBPP estimates that 140,000 fewer households will receive vouchers to help them afford decent housing.

House Democrat Rick Larsen summed this up well in Politico yesterday: “…no 3- or 4-year-old is going to call my office and say, ‘I’ve been kicked out of Head Start, replace that money.’” 'via Blog this'

A step forward for immigrants facing deportation

 Judge Dolly M. Gee

We are moving - if fitfully - toward a national determination that we must find an orderly way to deal with the millions of immigrants who came here illegally, overstayed visas, or are subject to deportation as punishment for crime.  We deport hundreds of thousands each year -  a consequence that for many is far more severe than that provided by our criminal laws.  Fifty years ago the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright mandated counsel for those who are charged with a crime and cannot afford a lawyer.  Today there is wide recognition that there is a crisis of representation due to the unavailability of counsel for huge numbers of aliens facing removal from the country.

A step forward has now been crafted in an important ruling by a federal judge in California’s Central District - a place where the pastures of plenty are often harvested by immigrants.  Though the numbers affected are small, the remedial innovation  is important.  In Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder federal District Judge Holly Gee in 2011 certified a class of “mentally disabled immigrant detainees who are held in custody without counsel”.   She has now held that the Rehabilitation Act [29 USC 794]- which bars discrimination by an Executive Agency - compels the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review [EOIR] to provide class members with a “Qualified Representative” as a reasonable accommodation of disability.  
Judge Gee did not order the provision of counsel.  She defined Qualified Representative as “an attorney,  a law student or law graduate directly supervised by a retained  attorney, or an accredited representative”.  The last is defined as a” representative” of a government-recognized “non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization ”[8 C.F.R. § 1292.1; 1292.2]  Importantly the government conceded that though Congress has made no budgetary or statutory provision for counsel for immigrants facing removal it has not forbidden such expenditures.
In a welcome move the Department of justice  promptly announced that the “EOIR will make available a qualified representative to unrepresented detainees who are deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves in immigration proceedings. Additionally, detainees who were identified as having a serious mental disorder or condition that may render them mentally incompetent to represent themselves and who have been held in immigration detention for at least six months will also be afforded a bond hearing.”

Beneficiaries will be people like class member José Antonio Franco-Gonzalez, a Mexican immigrant with a cognitive disability who was detained in federal immigration facilities for nearly five years without a hearing or a lawyer.  Another is Ever Francisco Martinez who was found by the  Immigration Judge “not mentally competent to proceed pro se in the removal proceedings” initiated because though lawful resident alien he had been convicted of a serious crime.  The Immigration Judge said  “ Simply put, [he] is unrepresented and is mentally incompetent. ... unable to effectively participate in a coherent manner, to comprehend the nature and consequences of the proceedings, to communicate with the Court in any meaningful dialog, to assert or waive any rights, and to seek various forms of relief.”

Officials: Suspect unarmed when arrested in boat

This is a god example of why you can't trust the press, the cops, or eyewitnesses who claimed there was a 45 minute gun battle while Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding out in a covered boat.  The account was not corroborated by the infrared video released which showed the fugitive lying on the deck of the boat, with no gun.  But that didn't stop the Boston Police Commissioner or the press from telling the gun-battle story.
- GWC

Officials: Suspect unarmed when arrested in boat: 
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Two U.S. officials say the surviving suspect in the Boston bombings was unarmed when police captured him hiding inside a boat in a neighborhood back yard. Authorities originally said they had exchanged gunfire with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-KHAHR’ tsahr-NEYE’-ehv) for more than one hour Friday evening before they were able to subdue him. 
 The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation, say investigators recovered a 9 mm handgun believed to have been used by Tsarnaev’s brother, Tamerlan, from the site of a gun battle Thursday night, which injured a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority officer. Dzhokhar was believed to have been shot before he escaped. The officials tell The Associated Press that no gun was found in the boat. Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said earlier that shots were fired from inside the boat." 

  'via Blog this'

Oyez Project Supreme Court Archive finishes job begun by Peter Irons

NPR reports that Chicago Kent's Oyez project has provided the great service of completing its archives of Supreme Court oral arguments going back to 1955.

As of just a few weeks ago, all of the archived historical audio — which dates back to 1955 — has been digitized, and almost all of those cases can now be heard and explored at an online archive called the Oyez Project.

Oyez Project founder and director Jerry Goldman tells NPR the digital recordings archive began in the early 1990s from a simple idea: to give the public access to unabridged Supreme Court recordings.

Peter Irons

But the account leaves out the groundbreaking work of historian and lawyer Peter Irons whose 1993 May It Please the Court presented the audio tapes of arguments before the court in twenty two landmark cases.  Irons had permission to listen to the tapes but not to copy them, reportedly annoying Justice William Rehnquist.  It was a tiny act of civil disobedience for Irons who was a draft resister who had spent time in federal prison for his defiance of the draft.  He was profiled by psychiatrist Willard Gaylin in his book of profiles of war resisters in prison `In the Service of their Country'.  He found Irons entirely sane, which I recall being the case when he and I were graduate students of Howard Zinn in 1970.  Irons has gone on to prove his mettle as both historian and lawyer - particularly in his important role in efforts to reopen the Fred Korematsu wartime Japanese internment cases.  Irons is retired from the UC San Diego political science department where he founded and directs the Earl Warren Bill of Rights Project.  Irons is nothing if not persistent.  In an effort recently embraced by conservative columnist George Will , Irons is now campaigning to get the United States Supreme Court to repudiate its notorious Korematsu decision upholding the interment of Japanese Americans in WW II.

Gavel Grab » Editorial: Pennsylvania Justices ‘Meddling’ with Retirement Clause

Pennsylvania C.J. Ronald Castille, 69

I am sympathetic to raising the mandatory retirement age of 70, now that I am approaching it. The New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board - on which I serve - supports the rise, though it would take a constitutional amendment there.  And it's not because I have the bench in mind.  I dn't.  I'm admitted ionly in Jersey but live in new York - an automatic disqualifier. - GWC Gavel Grab » Editorial: Pennsylvania Justices ‘Meddling’ with Retirement Clause: "The Pennsylvania Constitution dictates that state judges must retire at the age of 70. The Supreme Court seems inspired to change this law in the not-so-distant future, a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial suggests. On May 8, the justices will hold arguments on a challenge to the state’s law (see Gavel Grab). Since Chief Justice Ronald Castille (photo), who is 69 years old, plans to run again for retention election this year, it’s easy to see why they are eager to take up the case, states a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial. Besides Castille, three other Pennsylvania justices will be turning 70 over the next five years. This seems to be yet another instance of the state’s high court “moving aggressively” to “meddle” in a case of direct personal interest, the editorial argues. The law may have been established many years ago, but the editorial pushes for changing it through the constitutional amendment process instead. Currently, there is a bill pending in the state House that would raise the retirement age to 75. Another proposed bill in the Senate would end forced retirement of state judges altogether." 'via Blog this'

John Snow - Father of Epidemiology - Bicentennial

John Snow

Twenty-two years ago I started working on the problem of presentation of adequate proof of causation of disease.  I was prompted by a question from the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Should we have a different standard of proof of causation in "increased risk cases"?  They ordered briefing and re-argument of a pair of cases in which plaintiffs alleged that their gastro-intestinal cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos.  I wrote a friend of the court brief for the Association of Trial Lawyers  of America - New Jersey chapter.  In the companion case Landrigan v. Celotex (1992) Justice Stewart Pollock wrote for the court that so long as the evidence was relevant and sound methods were used to reach a conclusion scientific opinion testimony should be admitted into evidence.

One year  later the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same conclusion - though the court's use of the term "gatekeeper" emboldened hundreds of Reagan-appointed federal judges to sweep hundreds of cases from the dockets, citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993).  The question which was presented by the defense in Daubert was whether a scientific theory had to achieve "general acceptance" before it could be admitted into evidence.  That absurd proposition - popularized by ideological conservatives like the propagandist/lawyer Peter Huber in his screed Galileo's Revenge - was rejected by the Supreme Court.

I initiated and co-authored  a friend of the court brief which a group of scientists embraced, including the late great paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould - whose clever columns in Natural History had introduced me to the history of science.  It was, in essence, a recitation of the thesis of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  It recognised that scientific ideas contend, that one "paradigm" replaces another, and that progress is imperfect because no single model explains all.  Kuhn used the example of the slow embrace of the helio-centric Copernican model of astronomy that replaced the geo-centric Ptolemaic theory.  
John Snow, the father of modern epidemiology, presents a different and compelling example.  His pioneering work as anesthesiologist led him to reject the then-prevailing "miasma" theory which asserted that cholera spread via the gases of decomposing organic matter.  
Snow was also a pioneer of mapping - an important tool in epidemiology.  Snow  correctly identified the source of the disease in fecal contamination of the London water supply, famously persuading the City to close the Broad Street pump.  
At his death the great scientist got short shrift from The Lancet, which has on the 200th anniversary of his 1813 birth  published  a new obituary and an article titled The Singular Science of John Snow, an excerpt from which follows.  - GWC

Snow's ether inhaler

"The step to becoming a cholera scientist is not so obvious. Snow had treated cholera as a teenage apprentice, assigned to the coal mines near Newcastle in the epidemic of 1831. But he wrote nothing about cholera until 1849, during the world's second cholera pandemic. Although then occupied intensely in experiments with anaesthetics and the clinical practice of anaesthesia, Snow published that year his theory of the faecal-oral transmission of the cholera agent, and the extension of that transmission when water supplies became contaminated with cholera evacuations.

The connection between the two fields was a negative one. Snow's understanding of how substances in gaseous form affected human physiology made it impossible for him to accept the reigning theory of how epidemic diseases arose and spread through miasmatic gases emanating from decaying animal or vegetable material, assisted by atmospheric changes that led to epidemics. This scepticism is muted in his cholera works, where his emphasis is nearly entirely on argument and evidence for his own theory, but found sharp expression in 1855, when he was called on to give parliamentary evidence in relation to the health risks of the “nuisance trades”, the bone boiling and hide tanning businesses in London. His argument, scathingly dismissed by The Lancet, and met with incredulity by several Members of Parliament, was that these trades, foul though they were, simply did not cause epidemic disease. The effects of gaseous emanations, as he knew well from his anaesthesia work, dropped off by the square of distance from the source. That gases carrying the cholera agent could affect people miles away was to Snow nonsensical."

Gabby Giffords: A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip - NYTimes.com

A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip - NYTimes.com:
by Gabrielle Giffords, former Member of Congress

Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo — desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation — to go on.

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated. I am asking for mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You’ve lost my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators’ e-mail lists and to stop giving them money. I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You’ve disappointed me, and there will be consequences.

'via Blog this'

Republican filibuster blocks vote on gun background checks.

Voting to strengthen gun buyers background checks that might reduce the chance that a lunatic or person with a history of violence would be able to amass an arsenal seems like the absolute least we could do in response to the maimings and the massacres we suffer.  Not to mention the handgun violence that plagues the poorest areas of our cities.  Today, flanked by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords whose face tells you the story of her shooting, and flanked by parents of Newtown Connecticut whose children were shot in their first grade classrooms, President Obama spoke as angrily as I have ever heard a President speak about a political matter.

 .Calling it a "shameful day in Washington" he bluntly accused the NRA or lying and (mostly) Republican Senators of cowardice.  In response he called on citizens in "you are the change" mode:“Those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe.”

As Andrew Sprung points out in a characteristically acute analysis of presidential rhetoric at xpostfactoid  That is assuming that we collectively will what he wills us to will. Maybe it's that old Obama naivete again. Time will tell whether the appeal to our better angels is the deeper political wisdom."

A Tax System Stacked Against the 99 Percent - NYTimes.com

A Tax System Stacked Against the 99 Percent - NYTimes.com: by Jospeh Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize

LEONA HELMSLEY, the hotel chain executive who was convicted of federal tax evasion in 1989, was notorious for, among other things, reportedly having said that “only the little people pay taxes.”
As a statement of principle, the quotation may well have earned Mrs. Helmsley, who died in 2007, the title Queen of Mean. But as a prediction about the fairness of American tax policy, Mrs. Helmsley’s remark might actually have been prescient.

'via Blog this'

Wow. Law School Enrollment Dropoff Causes 20% Catholic U. budget cuts

Wow.  This is what they mean when they say law schools are cash cows!
The Tower : Law School Enrollment Dropoff Causes Departmental Budget Cuts:

Catholic University will cut operational expenditures by 20 percent under a proposal by the Provost, a move that is the result of a decline in revenue from law school enrollment.

'via Blog this'

For the Defense, a Master of Delay - NYTimes.com

Douglas Rankin  -"I'm a trial, trial, trial, trial lawyer"

The headline aside, this is actually a pretty favorable portrait of former prosecutor, now defense lawyer Douglas G. Rankin.  He denies using delay as a tactic.  It's a profile that can be the basis for a good discussion of what it means to be a good lawyer. The factual focus in the article regarding delay in Bronx County Supreme is that while felony indictments in the Bronx have decreased 25% in the past decade, the number of cases pending for more than six months has doubled. From my few years as a pool attorney for the Public Defender in Newark, there is no doubt that trials take time, that witnesses move,  grow uncooperative, and are inherently unpredictable.  Cases that appear un-winnable can be won for such reasons. - GWC 

For the Defense, a Master of Delay - NYTimes.com: by William Glaberson

The grand exhibition hall of dawdlers that is the Bronx courthouse features procrastinating prosecutors, sluggish jailers and unhurried judges. But the true masters of delay are the defense lawyers. For them, muddled memories and lost witnesses — the passage of time itself — are the ingredients for getting clients off.So there was barely a raised eyebrow among those waiting in a Bronx courtroom in June when one gum-chewing, pocket-hankie-wearing lawyer strolled in late for the start of a trial over a grisly stabbing in Co-op City, saying his return flight from a weekend getaway to Puerto Rico had been delayed.Cheerful, with his rolling lawyer’s bag in tow, he exclaimed without apology: “Exhausted!”  Here, if a little late, was Douglas G. Rankin for the defense, the very personification of a justice system tied up in knots.

And then there is St. Expeditus   h/t John Steele

'via Blog this'