Ravings from a Man in an Old White House

Sony’s CEO, Kaz Hirai, is annoyed that Microsoft is so damned unoriginal, according to an Ars Techinca article. Ars suggests that the Hirai is just trying to stir-up trouble because X-Box 360 is starting to take-off, while no one wants to pay for PS3. I say that’s about right. And while we all like to criticize Microsoft, it doesn’t make Sony’s new gaming unit anymore affordable. If Sony puts out a product that they can comfortably price-out at a reasonable dollar amount next time, maybe those anti-Microsoft comments won’t smell of sour grapes.

When I was little, my grandma and I used to watch Good Morning America with Charlie Gibson, Joan Lunden, and Spencer Christian. Joan and Spencer have been gone for some time, but now Charlie has said goodbye. He’s off to a new assignment as anchor of World News Tonight. I had a chance to watch some of his last GMA this morning, and I am not ashamed to admit I got a bit choked-up. Watching GMA will never be same, and I’m afraid I will rarely see Charlie Gibson anymore, since I don’t often watch World News Tonight, even when I am home for it.

Looking ahead to this week, I thought that with a smidge of work on Sunday, I would be able to catch-up by the end of business Friday. I’m not so sure anymore. I was in court longer than expected on Monday. I had a 4-way conference after court on Tuesday, and I didn’t get into the office until after 3:30. A few files took up the bulk of the day. By the end of the day, I’d knocked half the items off my to-do list, but it ended up twice as full as when I started. Now I see why so many big-firm associates are cokeheads.

It used to be that when the Supreme Court made a decision, there would be an opinion explaining the decision of the majority, a decision, and maybe a concurrence or two. I remember a case in which their were ten opinions: one per curiam, i.e., for the Court, and one for each justice. If anyone can remind me of which, I’d really appreciate it.

Anyway, justices now divide their opinions into parts (Part i, Part II-A, etc.). They do this so that other judges can join part of their opinion rather than the whole thing. This has gotten out of hand. The following is a run down of how the justices voted on the Texas redistricting case that was announced today:

Kennedy, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II-A and III, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts I and IV, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II-C, and an opinion with respect to Part II-D, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Breyer, J., joined as to Parts I and II. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Thomas, J., joined, and in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined as to Part III.

Litigants in the state of Illinois have an interesting right at the trial court level. Each party has the right to have their case transferred to a new judge for no reason at all. 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2). To do so, the party must file a motion before the trial or hearing has begun and before the judge has ruled on a substantial issue in the case. If a person is added as a party after a substantial ruling, the new party can still move for a substitution of judge.

The motion is really simple. You allege that the Honorable So-and-So was assigned to the matter, that there has been no hearing or trial, and that there has been no ruling on a substantial issue. Then you ask for a reassignment and you’re done.

On the day your motion is heard, you go before the judge your trying to get away from. Generally, the question of whether their has been a substantial ruling is not controversial, so it is granted. Then you go to the next highest judge, i.e., the presiding judge of the division (if the court is divided into divisions) or the Chief Judge (if the judge you are changing from is the presiding judge or if there are no divisions). That judge reassigns you to a new judge. Finally, you go before the new judge to tell him or her that you have been reassigned to that courtroom and to apprise the court of the basic facts of the case.

Rush Limbaugh was detained by customs because he possessed a prescription for Viagra in someone else’s name. What’s funnier, that Rush is still playing fast and loose with prescriptions, or that it was Viagra?

Second Massachusetts post in a row. As you probably all know, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts struck down the restriction that marriage only be contracted between one man and one woman. Predictably, the court upheld the requirement that marriages contracted in Massachusetts between people from out of state be valid in their home state. In doing so, they left open the question of what to do when the foreign jurisdiction does not explicitly restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

This question will be answered before too long. The Superior Court, Suffolk County, is considering whether a lesbian couple from Rhode Island, which does not have the one-man, one-woman restriction, should be issued a marriage license.

To my view, this challenge is step 2 of 5:

1. Find a state to recognize gay marriage;
2. Get that state to issue licenses to out-of-staters;
3. Get the home states to recognize the validity of the license;
4. Use that to encourage states to repeal their Defense of Marriage Acts and by statute to provide for marriage; and
5. Launch serious (and seriously funded) constitutional challenge.

My best guess is that step 2 will soon be crossed off the list.

Next fall, lawyers will argue the question of whether the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide before the Supreme Court. Ironically, large amounts of CO₂ will be expelled in the process. The case is Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, 05-1120. In a nutshell, several states, Illinois included, want the EPA to regulate CO₂ emissions from automobiles. The EPA says that it doesn’t have the authority, and that it wouldn’t even if it could. The lower courts have agreed with the EPA, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion is here. The debate boils down to this: is CO₂ a pollutant? In a way the question is interesting. The planet needs the stuff to survive, but excess CO₂ is, well, not so good. In the end, it’s bothersome that the EPA and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers are on the same side of the case. It should be AAM v. EPA, not Mass. v. EPA.

I know two people going through the excruciating ordeal of fulfilling the examination requirement for admission to practice as an Attorney and Counselor at Law in the state of Illinois. At some point, any lawyer, law graduate, or law student’s bar-exam related train of thought will make a stop at how pointless law school is. Law school doesn’t prepare you all that well for the bar and almost not at all for practice. It is defended as a place where one learns to “think like a lawyer.” This is supposed to be complete around the end of the first year. That leaves two years of questionable value.

Tens of thousands of dollars later, there are only a few thousand more to spend. There are the ones that matter: tuition for the bar review. Unlike law school bar review (a weekly ritual wherein law students get drunk enough to forget their names (but not the Rule Against Perpetuities) and hook-up (but the first to recite the Rule doesn’t get any for a week (no interest is good which is not certain to vest or fail to vest within a life in being at the time of the making plus 21 years). Damn, lost again)), the bar review course (I recommend BarBri) gives you the substantive information you need to pass and invaluable tips on what to expect when you get there. All the same, the studying sucks. Hardcore. If I recall correctly, even watching the Real Property and Criminal Law lectures was enough to induce a man to gouge his eyes out and shove them in his ears. Or fall asleep. Whatever. I could never sleep in class.

At some point, I really had something meaningful to say. I kinda got lost though. Anyway, it’s hi-fucking-larious that other people have to go through the tortuous (and tortious) nonsense I had to.

I received a “wink” from a girl on Match.com. I’m not even remotely interested. Why do I bother.