Obama Says NoThankYou to Public Election Money

From the NYTimes: Obama, in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing:

Citing the specter of attacks from independent groups on the right, Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election…. Mr. Obama’s decision, which had long been expected given his record-breaking money-raising prowess during the Democratic primary season, was immediately criticized by Mr. McCain, who confirmed Thursday that he would accept public financing.  “This is a big, big deal,” said Mr. McCain, of Arizona, who was touring flooded areas in Iowa. “He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people.”

Not surprisingly, Sen. Obama’s campaign puts a different spin on his decision to say “no!” to public funding:

[Thursday] Barack announced to his supporters that he would not be taking public financing for the general election.  Barack is putting his faith in ordinary citizens giving only what they can afford and will not participate in the broken public finance system that our opponents manipulate to raise as much money as possible…. Even though we stood to receive more than $80 million in taxpayer funding for our campaign, the system has been so gamed and exploited by our opponents that it is effectively broken.  John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and their allies in so-called 527 groups that raise and spend unlimited contributions are dedicated to manipulating this broken system to raise as much money as possible — and they’ve proven that they’re very good at it.  A top McCain adviser told MSNBC earlier this month, “now that we’re in the general election, the RNC money counts, the DNC money counts. So the truth is today, John McCain has more cash on hand and more money than Barack Obama does.”

This is a problem for me.  I understand the basis: by continuing to accept private donations, Obama can maintain his image of being funded by the little man, with over 90% of his funding coming from small donations; by calling the public financing system broken and gameable, Obama can stick a spear in a system highly identified with McCain.  And maybe, at the beginning of the campaign, Obama and his staff didn’t expect him to become the fund-raising sensation that he is now, which is why he initially said he would take public money.  But for a candidate who has based his electability on integrity and judgment, it’s a big flip-flop to make, and a highly visible one at that.  I don’t know whether the Obama campaign has fully realized what kind of harm this can do to his image as an anti-politician.  Maybe they have, and they still think the benefits of changing sides outweighs the costs.  But they have to be careful now: a candidate like Obama can’t afford to do this more than maybe once or twice.

2d Circuit Rejects Potential Civil Rights Blockbuster

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, I saw that the 2d Circuit last week denied a request for an en banc rehearing of Ricci v. DeStefano, a case in which the town of New Haven rejected the results of a fire department promotion test because it did not like the racial distribution of the grades.  At issue is whether the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII prohibit or allow this practice.

As Prof. Adler points out in his posts on Volokh (here and here), the real interesting aspect of this decision is that the Circuit divided 7-6, an unusually close vote, and created two dissenting opinions and one concurrence.

Prof. Somin agrees with the dissenters and Prof. Adler over here and outlines some additional constitutional considerations about the case.

Ed Whelan gives his take over at Bench Memos over here.

And Connecticut Employment Law Blog offers a sympathetic view of the case over here.

A Few Thoughts for the Day

Thought #1

California started handing out wedding licenses last night at 5:01pm.  You can read more about it here. Some counties are refusing to hand out the licenses and perform marriages while in other counties, the mayor is transforming his office into a wedding chapel to help same-sex couples celebrate the remarkable occasion.  The changes in New York and California have been incredibly exciting this spring and I only hope that it is the beginning of a trend across the country.  (I know that’s probably an overly-optimistic hope, but we can all be a little irrational sometimes, right?)

Thought #2

I am clerking for a federal judge in Vermont this summer and was somewhat surprised by what I heard at a hearing yesterday.  The lawyers were arguing about two motions in limine, one asking to admit certain evidence and one asking to exclude certain evidence in a civil rights case against a police officer and a Vermont municipality.  The judge didn’t rule on the motions, but the defense lawyers thought he was leaning toward granting both motions in favor of the plaintiff.  I had done some research on the two motions and knew the legal arguments on both sides pretty well.  However, I was unprepared for the defense attorney’s argument.  The defense attorney asked the judge that since the plaintiff was going to get to exclude evidence they didn’t want in, shouldn’t the city get to exclude some evidence they didn’t want in?  That’s right folks, it was a tit for tat argument.  Instead of pointing out the legal basis for the exclusion (which there were plenty) and poking holes in the plaintiff’s arguments (again, plenty), the lawyer resorted to fourth grade playground bargaining of a tit for tat nature.

Perhaps its naive of me to be surprised by this, but i’m curious about what others think, particularly those who are spending/have spent a lot of time in court.

FRP - Open Thread

Howdy everyone!  I hope that your summers have been fun and productive so far.  As I am sure we all know, the dates for FRP are rapidly approaching: bidding starts in a few short weeks and then our bids are due within a month.

I have tried to get a handle on the myriad of firms and opportunities out there for next summer.  It feels overwhelming.  Almost every firm boasts that it has a “unique” work environment - which collectively doesn’t seem that unique to me.  It seems like a lot of the government job offerings offer very specialized and niche practice areas, which is great if you know where you want to work post-graduation but not so helpful if you don’t.

Are you finding some of the same roadblocks that I am?  Has anyone cracked the “code” to researching job opportunities?  Discuss in the comments.

Tim Russert Dead at 58

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/

Detainees Get Habeas Rights

Here’s a quick post on an opinion penned by Justice Kennedy that was just released in the Boumediene v. Bush case.  You can read more about it at Volokh or at the SCOTUSBlog. The Military Tribunal laws that were passed under the Bush administration stripped the detainees of their Habeas rights.  However Kennedy’s opinion says that suspension can only happen according to the Suspension Clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 9), which says it can’t be limited “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”  I haven’t read the opinions yet, but it’s clear that this case is a big deal.  I’m sure the dissent argues that this is a case where public safety requires suspension and that the attacks of 9/11 were an invasion.  That seems like a stretch to me, but i guess both sides can be argued.  Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens joined Kennedy with the more conservative wing of the court dissenting.

Any thoughts?

Footnote of the Day

This gem of a footnote was in response to a motion titled “Defendant’s Motion to Discharge Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Response Opposing Objection to Discharge.”  The judge denied the motion on grounds of “incomprehensibility.”

The court cannot determine the substance, if any, of the Defendant’s legal argument, nor can the court even ascertain the relief that the Defendant is requesting. The Defendant’s motion is accordingly denied for being incomprehensible.^FN1

FN1. Or, in the words of the competition judge to Adam Sandler’s title character in the movie, “Billy Madison,” after Billy Madison had responded to a question with an answer that sounded superficially reasonable but lacked any substance, “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

(HT PrawfsBlawg)

The Congressional Record Is Fun

As part of my summer job, I get to look through the old, dusty, bound volumes of the Congressional Record.  Here’s the gem I found today, for your enjoyment, from Senator James Allen of Alabama, October 10, 1977:

MR. ALLEN.  Mr. President, the distinguished minority whip, MR. STEVENS, a few moments ago was talking about the happenings and meditations over the weekend.  I suppose the most important happening over the weekend–certainly one of the most important happenings–was the upset victory by the University of Alabama’s great Crimson Tide football team over the No. 1 ranked USC football team, which was and is a great team and certainly a spectacular team.

I comment the University of Southern California for their great football team and their near comeback in the fourth quarter.  At the same time, I must comment on the University of Alabama’s great upset victory and commend the team and the coaching staff, headed by coach Paul Bryant.  It was a most spectacular game, and I am sure that those who attended it or saw it on television or heard it on the radio were thrilled throughout the game by this meeting of two great teams.

Then Sen. Allen went on to talk about defects in proposed Panama Canal treaties.  I think the transition worked very nicely.

Finally: Obama v. McCain 2008

I have to say, I’m glad the primary season is (basically) over.  I had a serious case of primary fatigue by Tuesday night when Sen. Obama said “I win” and Sen. Clinton said “no decisions tonight.”  And now we can begin the big fight, as Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain begin the real head-to-head battle for the general election.  To get the ball rolling, USA Today has front page interviews with each candidate (Obama; McCain).  Let’s start some preliminary, reflexive, unsupported banter: who do you want to see inaugurated in January?

From 1L to Summer Work

A few legal blogs have been offering tips to 1Ls making the transition from overworked student, to overwhelmed intern/summer associate/research assistant.  If you’re wondering how to make the most of your summer work, you might want to check out this post at Concurring Opinions.   And from what looks to be a promising trove of information, the Suffolk University Law School is hosting a series of podcasts on how to transition from 1L to summer legal work.  (HT PrawfsBlawg).

Good luck this summer!  Feel free to post other tips and observations here.