Why I Dumped Law Review

In law school, I was on Bar Review for about a week. This was supposed to be some sort of elite training, allowed for an honored few.

At the newbie meeting, the faculty gloated over how rigorous would be the training, saying "This will be by far the hardest thing you have ever done!"

I looked to my right: that student was a cop in our decaying Northeastern city.

I looked to my left: that student was a new mother.

I recalled that I had just finished a weekend of martial arts training featuring several powerlifters and at least one retired Special Forces guy. (I say this not to exalt myself, for I was and am far, far, far less capable than any of them; the point was, I was still recovering from exhaustion and fear.)

I thought: Was bar review like getting shot, having your head twisted off, and giving birth?

Or was this some outmoded ritual?

I started to lose confidence in bar review.

Later events would bear out my evaluation.

Fair Vote!

Here's an interesting idea for reforming the way we vote for President: get your state to pass a law awarding its electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes nationwide.

We need to reform the way we elect Presidents, because under our current system, only a few "battleground states" really matter. Most of our states lean heavily one way or the other, so candidates must ignore these "bystander states" to concentrate on the ones that could go either way.

Think about it. If you are a Republican in California or New York, you might as well sleep in on election day; the same thing if you're a Democrat in Texas or Idaho. Your vote just won't make a difference, under our current system.

BUT if California or Texas awarded its electoral votes to the candidate that got the most votes nationwide, suddenly YOUR VOTE WOULD MATTER! Even if your candidate lost your state by a million votes, your vote would still count in the national total, and therefore could determine your state's electoral votes.

Best of all, this solution requires NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! States have the Constitutional right to award their electoral votes any way they want!

Learn more at http://www.fairvote.org/

Scalia Flunks Ethics Quiz

Justice Antonin Scalia failed, once again, a basic ethics question: "Can a judge ethically decide a case involving his hunting buddy?"

Recently, he boasted that his failure to recuse himself in a 2004 case involving his hunting buddy, Dick Cheney, was the "proudest thing" he has ever done on the Supreme Court. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201905_pf.html.

However, the rule in such cases is not as Scalia stated. The rule is not whether he can be trusted to be impartial. The rule, for a judge, is whether he can avoid the appearance of partiality.

Judging a case involving a hunting buddy reasonably draws into question the impartiality of the judge. It may be that Justice Scalia is, personally, able to rule on the case fairly. However, a reasonable person could question whether there would be some tilt in his judgment.

A judge motivated by and aware of ethical issues would have recused himself.

Justice Scalia did not.

For him to boast of his violation of basic ethical standards is a shame on the Court and on the entire legal profession.

Most judges would be subject to investigation for such a violation. But, under our Constitution, the body empowered to investigate Scalia, as a member of the Supreme Court, is the Senate.

And the titular head of the Senate is Scalia's hunting buddy.

Which is Libby's Lie?

Here's what I find hard to understand.

Libby told Miller the NIE had the uranium claim as a "key finding" ... meaning it was real solid intel.

But the NIE in fact did NOT have the uranium claim as a "key fining". In fact, it was acknowledged as supported by no reliable evidence.

So Libby, in this matter, wasn't giving out secret information, but LYING about the secret information.

If this is so, why is Bush NOW saying he declassified what Libby disclosed? You can't declassify something that does not exist.

But can you declassify a lie about the contents of a formerly classified document? It would have to be a CLASSIFIED LIE first!

"Oh, what a wicked web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!"

Why Bush couldn't go to West Point

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do." - West Point Cadet Honor Code

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/

Republishing the Memoirs of William Sampson

For the past few months, I've been working on getting back into print the memoirs of an Irish Protestant lawyer, William Sampson, who in 1798 was tortured and exiled for the crime of defending Catholics in occupied Ireland. He came to America on July 4, 1806 and became a leader in promoting human rights and religious under our Constitution.

His story is a rippin' yarn, full of history, drama, horror and even some humor. Great stuff, but out of print for 190 years.

Progress so far:
1. Confirm it's out of copyright (190 years)
2. Purchase original copy (2d edition, 1817.)
3. Re-enter content.
4. Post content on web for free viewing by anybody: http://rewinn.com/3990
5. Submit content to a Just-In-Time publisher, and order a copy to review: http://cafepress.com/rewinn

I just got the review copy back from the JIT publisher. It's basically o.k. but I have some tinkering to do. Mostly, the page numbers didn't come out right (probably a disagreement between me and the word processor, not the publisher) and I want to neaten up the cover images. But it's all readable as is, but of course I want to make it better!

I'd like to experiment with other JIT publishers too. Anyone with suggestions, please email me at rewinn2003@yahoo.com

Book Of The Day: The New Male Sexuality

I sell 10-20 books a day at http://amazon.com/shops/rewinn. Most days, one stands out for some reason.
This week, it was an order for "The New Male Sexuality".

After I packed it for shipment, an email arrived:
"My husband is excited about receiving this book. Can you send it Priority Mail. I'll pay extra!"

I smiled and upgraded the shipment.

Today I got an email: "Thank you! My husband loves the book."

What could I say in reply?
"You're welcome. Have a great weekend!"

I think they might ...

It's time to look beyond the politically dead Bush & Cheney for the GOP's options for a soft landing.

Is there any doubt that Bush & Cheney told Fitzgerald things about disclosing classified information that we now know are not true? Their best defense is that they automatically declassified the material by disclosing it, which does not change the fact of the lie, and that they were not under oath, and so cannot be convicted of perjury. Felony obstruction of justice convictions can be stopped only by suborning Fitzgerald (unlikely) or getting pardons.

Legally, that may be helpful to them, but it's still poison to the Republican party. Sooner or later, the party's backers are going to explain the facts of life to the duo. If they resign, they can cut a deal; if they fight to the death, the Democrats will run the board simply by pasting Bush & Cheney's face on every GOP poster in America.

If Cheney resigns, Bush can pardon him and appoint a successor who Bush would hope, to use Gerald Ford's excuse, would ultimately pardon Bush for the good of the nation. But who might get through the Senate?

A Senator is the obvious choice; they all know each other and there's a certain amount of collegiality. But the pick would have an enormous advantage in the presidential race of '08, and so would be opposed by his rivals. Frist would block McCain; McCain would block Frist.

Also, the GOP's backroom boys don't want to give away any Senate seats since they'll need all they can get after the tsunami of voter anger this November.

The obvious candidate is Jim Jeffords: http://jeffords.senate.gov/

Jeffords has no presidential ambitions, and no following in either party. He's not part of the Republican majority, so he's no loss to the GOP machine. And the Democrats would have a hard time opposing him because he's the one man in recent memory who resigned from the GOP on grounds of principle.

Jeffords, as a man of principle and of experience, would be a good choice for America, and that may be his only weakness. President Jeffords might be reluctant to pardon Bush; that makes him Bush's most unlikely nominee.

http://rewinn.com/9971

Franken and Coulter? The Oddest Couple!

Last Monday, Al Franken debated Ann Coulter at a lecture series sponsored by the University of Judaism in L.A.

It seems to have gone pretty much as one would expect; you will definitely enjoy Franken's comments in An Evening With Ann Coulter.