Pages

Showing posts with label Prof. Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prof. Justice. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Guest Bios II

Since a few of the guests complained - and you know who you are! - here are the new, updated Guest Bios for all of the wonderful guest contributors we have here at SerandEz. The first edition is here.
You can click on any name to skip down to their bio. Click on any bio's title name to come back to the top:

Family: Serach, SIL, & iPayTooMuchForMyHair.
Long-time friends: DGEsq, Pobody's Nerfect, MordyS, & the holy Reb Abe.
Post-Israel, pre-blog: DaKirsch, FFD, Eliezer StrongBad, & the balding Prof. Justice.
And from around the J-Blogosphere: SoccerDad, ~ Sarah ~, crazy Jameel, Stam, glittery Shoshana, Chana, and of course, the Holy Hyrax.
We've got to start it off with the family, so...

  • Serach - SerandEz, a small welcoming independent republic that is not part of New York, though it is surrounded on all four sides by Kew Gardens Hills, NY (via Monsey, NY)
    Serach is my wife, and hence the first half of the name, SerandEz. [Woah!] She blogs and comments under my name, which is of course incredibly confusing, even though I did once make her her own login. Ah well. After two years, she finally broke down and posted - inspired, of course, not by me, but by Holy Hyrax. Hmph. But hey, I can't complain too much, or I'll get in big trouble. She graduated Magna Cum Laude in receiving her Master's in Education & Special Education, and works one-on-one with high-functioning children in their schools.
  • SIL - Kew Gardens, NY via Small Town, OOT
    SIL is (of course) my sister-in-law. She still loves chocolate, is a working mother of three of the cutest kids alive [the -ens], and she somehow supports my Older Dumber brother while he continues on his grueling journey toward smicha. Or something like that. Perhaps someday, she'll write that long-awaited post about men, women, and sports. In the meantime, enjoy her old inspiring, thoughtful, and happy posts.
  • iPayTooMuchForMyHair - Kew Gardens Hills, NY via Chicago, IL
    iPayTooMuchForMyHair isn't really related, but we now share some relatives, and she has the distinct misfortune of being an auditor - with me! - as well. She is an avid spender, and dreams one day of being a makeup artist. She takes pride in being a JAP with a brain, and her profile says it well: "I'm not as shallow as my interests make me seem!" Though you wouldn't know it when you see her reactions to commercial advertising and shiny objects, this is actually true. She is a successful, smart, funny, and thinking girl with personality who wonders why a lot of that often doesn't seem too matter much.
The next set are the ones who've known me far longer than Serach has other than the people above...

  • DGEsq - Kew Gardens Hills, NY via Cleveland, OH
    DGEsq. Oh, where to begin... DGEsq is an ultra-confident law student who will be successful at whatever he does, and he's now working full-time in the field he likes at the same time as he's in school, along with taking care of his wife and really cute baby. He can - and often does - talk anybody into doing anything, and his pet peeves are generally related to (Jewish) economics and how they should be fixed. "No" is not an answer he likes to accept, which is part of what helps him succeed... along with the guts to say what he thinks and sticking things out. Hopefully we'll get some more straight-up posts from him in the future.
  • Pobody's Nerfect - Flatbush, NY via Cleveland, OH
    Pobody's Nerfect is probably still the guest poster whose posts I look forward to reading the most. She's the epitome of clawing one's way to success, fighting through and against everything that life has thrown at her. She's an inspiration and demonstration of strength of will to anyone who knows her, though she'll never realize it or admit it. Everything I wrote the last time is just as true as ever: She [still] has the distinction of having been of the few people to truly inspire me, when I was otherwise turned off by a lot of things I was around at one point in my life. This, despite being a few years my junior, at a time when I felt that most people my age or many years my senior I was surrounded by were complete morons, and at a time when she was probably troubled by more issues than I was. She is one of the too-rare truly thinking frum young women out there, and possibly the only thing holding her back from greatness is her shyness. And oh yeah, she's hilarious when she wants to be, too. To top it off, Serach plots with her [hmph], and Elianna loves her. :)
  • MordyS - Monsey, NY
    MordyS is that guy that everyone loves to love. He makes everyone laugh, he's personable, and he has no qualms about speaking his mind. He's honest, self-aware, and a master ranter. He's sickened by hypocrisy, loves people who are honest with themselves, and is constantly trying to work his way up the rock-face on the way to becoming a better person.
  • Reb Abe - Passaic, NJ via Monsey, NY
    Reb Abe is our resident tzaddik and patriot. He's the one who will go through the cash lanes of tolls to wish the operator a good evening even though he has an EZ-pass, or spend over 2 hours driving back and forth just to save you a little time and money (and at his own expense, too). And nobody knows how to show respect like Reb Abe. One day, maybe he'll come off that marriage high and actually post something new for us to work our brains around. In the meantime, we'll let him stew over his inability to fly his flag on the Fourth due to the constraints of his living space.
Next up we have the group who I met while in Lander and had to put up with me in different ways...

  • DaKirsch - Manhattan, NY
    DaKirsch is... well, DaKirsch. He's a video-game playing, sports-obsessed, music and movie aficionado who will spend hours tracking down cartoons from fifteen years ago. He's the best snapping center you could ask for despite his height (or lack thereof), and you can count on him whenever you want an expert opinion on what games to buy or where to find a song online. He's also picked two drafts exceedingly well for SerandEz, and perhaps we'll convince him to write some more technology or sports posts in the future... just not about his fantasy baseball skills, seeing as how he's in 9th place.
  • FFD - Hillcrest, NY but soon to be The Bronx, NY
    FFD, or FrumDoc, has never yet written here on SerandEz, being too busy with his new wife, his job, and getting ready to move and start medical school. He used to post over at FrumDoc, and we miss him over there, but we'll miss him and FFW more when they move to Einstein. Not that they ever come to visit now either... but I digress. FFD is our perfectionist and worry-body, but that usually works out okay, and he's sensible about when to worry and when not to. For instance, he's also a wonderful procrastinator and can be extremely lazy, in addition to spending excessive amounts of time on the computer. As FFW said, "He's acting just like you!" ...and as I responded, "Great!"
  • Eliezer StrongBad - Secret Location, Israel via Smelly Dump, NJ
    Eliezer StrongBad is currently in Israel, checking out lots of Israel Baseball League games while he does yet another internship with a top international firm. He always has an interesting perspective on things, noticing the details that a lot of others might miss... and he's consistently a great source of information. He's starting as the SerandEz IBL correspondent, but perhaps he'll parlay that into something a little larger. And boy, he sure does know how to count. Meanwhile, we hope he'll continue to update us on the new league and other Israel happenings until his return to NY this fall.
  • Prof. Justice - Undisclosed, NY
    Professor Justice has been AWOL for a while, ever since he switched positions from practicing criminal law in some very sticky situations and stings which I can't write about to a job he loves much more, which allows him to utilize his brain - and writing skills - a whole lot more. He's doing all this while still teaching a few courses at different universities in the area. Hopefully he'll come back soon with his (toned down :) ) caustic wit, sharp insights, and of course the sarcasm, discussing politics, terrorism, law, and of course, liberalism.
Finally, there are the other J-bloggers out there, a few of which have stopped by SerandEz to visit - whether for a couple hours on a Motzei Shabbos, a couple meals, or even for a couple Shabbosos.

  • SoccerDad - Baltimore, MD
    SoccerDad, who blogs at the aptly named SoccerDad, is the first J-blog I ever read... and also, the first J-blogger I ever met as such in real life. He's the creator of the blog carnival Haveil Havalim, which has had one of the biggest positive impacts on the J-blogosphere as a whole, exposing Jewish bloggers to other voices that are out there. And while I know he hates that I focus on this as opposed to all the rest of his writing, I love his fake editorials on behalf of large national papers which he then uses to shred their actual editorials with - gotta love it. He's one of the best pro-Israel bloggers out there, and we hope to get more of his aged (for a blogger!) wisdom here at SerandEz in the future, even if he is a part of more blogs than anyone else.
  • ~ Sarah ~ - Melbourne, Australia
    ~ Sarah ~, who blogs at Sarah's View, is the official photoblogger of SerandEz, even if she doesn't know it. She's the always funky one with the ever-changing header (really - go check it out, hit refresh), the profile photo that actually changes outfits (and fast, too!), and always has something to make you smile - even when you (or she) are down. We haven't had a chance to meet her - yet - but she's also got the coolest accent on this side of the hemi- err... equat- err... J-blogosphere. She's the one to show you something that will brighten your day when you need a life, and hopefully she'll shine her light, photo, and graphic skills this way again!
  • Jameel - The Muqata, Israel
    Ahh... Jameel of the Muqata... where to begin?! Should we start with the random phone calls while on counter-terrorist runs? The crazy ideas that actually pan out? The absurd visit at 1am when we lose an hour and Jameel needs to drive to and from Baltimore the next day? Jameel is our Aliyah correspondent, our Holy Hyrax or Ezzie rumor-mongerer, and our riot inciter here at SerandEz. He's always got something entertaining to say, and definitely knows how to get everyone going. We'll surely see more on Israel and Holy Hyrax's proclivities in the future.
  • Stam - Baltimore, MD via Hicksville, OOT
    Stam is new here, and constantly restarting at JustStam, but I'm confident that she will quickly become the official SerandEz hocker. She's got a car, a Treo, an apartment, and a constantly changing status on GMail, all while hosting her neighbor's guests whose fathers bang on the door when she's trying to sleep in just a bit because she's sick [and was on her computer until 5am]. Nebach, poor thing. But through it all, she keeps everybody happy and entertained, and perhaps she'll even make it up here to SerandEz in the near future. She claims she's "shy". Ha! I'm sure she will be entertaining us all on the blog sometime soon...
  • Shoshana - Passaic, NJ via Birmingham, AL (and Texas, and Oklahoma, and Canada, and...)
    Shoshana's name is summed up by her blog's name: SweetRose. Her blog is the third blog I read, and the first that really talked about life and life's experiences in a deep, thoughtful way. And that's what Shoshana herself is like - deep and thoughtful, with a healthy dose of fun, purple, and of course, glitter thrown on top. A truly sweet rose in a world full of thorns. She has wisdom well beyond her years, even if she looks 16, and we'll surely see her again at SerandEz sometime soon... or she's in big trouble. She's one of the J-bloggers who is most loved and whose words people actually listen to, possibly because they're so well-measured in a medium that often lacks that, and we always look forward to her insights.
  • Chana - Stern College, Manhattan, NY via Chicago, IL
    Chana is a very, very Curious Jew. She's a mold-breaking, brilliant young lady who left a terrible experience in a Bais Yaakov-style HS to attend a non-sectarian prep school; a breathtaking storyteller who inspires adults twice, even triple her age; and yet still manages to be a fun-loving, rain-dancing, super-sweet college student who is just high on life. She's not shy about anything, yet had to be dragged here by a wonderful mutual friend the first time, and her funky clothes and bursting personality made her a quick favorite of Serach and Elianna. Now she's becoming a frequent guest and we're sure to see more of her when she returns next semester. If only we could get her to write [with brevity?] over here a little more, too...
That's all, folk --- oh, I forgot someone? He's threatening to blow up the blog? AGAIN? Sigh... okay, okay. Acharon acharon chaviv...
  • Holy Hyrax - Los Angeles, CA
    Holy Hyrax. Woo. He told me that he "trusts me" and I should "write from the heart". He also threatened to call me up and cry over the phone if I'm not nice to him. Gimme a second... Okay. I got it. Holy Hyrax is living proof that one does not need to be a great speller to accomplish in life. Heck, you can be an atrocious speller, like he is. He is easily the funniest poster on this blog [sorry G], utilizing his natural humor and his incredible skills at graphic manipulation to create hilarious posters, pictures, and storylines for everyone to enjoy. He also will occasionally let out that heart-pulling post that surprises and inspires all who read it, before returning to his normal safe, super-skeptic, joking manner. When I finally had a chance to shmooze with him over Coffee Bean in LA, I recall noting to Jameel afterward that I couldn't help but laugh at every other thing he said. He adds a levity to this blog that not many can, and we all enjoy having him around.
We hope you've enjoyed the guest bios; this blog is really not SerandEz, even if that's what the title says: It's SerandEz & Friends. It's a blog meant to be a fun place to see what's out there, read, discuss, and smile - to make connections, make friends, and have a good time. It's also a pretty open blog, so if you want to post something, feel free to ask me and I'll certainly give it a long look. We've had a number of guest posts in the past by people other than the contributors listed above. We hope you enjoy the blog, and thanks from ALL of us here at SerandEz for coming!

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Prof. Justice: DingDong!

HAIL, TO GEORGIE, THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!

Having been mired in work, midterms, more work, little league, even more work and final examinations, I finally began writing my next commentary. I was about to document the absurd email I receive from students and my responses thereto when Zarqawi’s death was announced. Upon learning of his untimely demise (it should have happened sooner), I popped a champagne cork, did a little dance and sang a song of praise to God (not his). I admit that I felt immense joy and pride when the President announced that American military forces “delivered justice” to Zarqawi, his “spiritual leader” Sheik Abdul Rahman and several of his henchmen. It is, of course, unfortunate that innocent women and children also perished, but what was Nicholas Berg? Oh, that’s right, an infidel who deserved beheading.

Fortunately, the Bush Administration refrained from announcing that Zarqawi death signaled an end to the war on terror. Predictably though, the media and the left couldn’t resist responding with the usual, “great but . . . .” Tim Russert, National Public radio and others stated that Zarqawi’s death was symbolic and would change little or nothing about the situation on the ground. Perennial Bush critic Richard Clarke said Iraq is not safer, the war would not end sooner and that “Zarqawi only commanded a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency.” The June 12 edition Boston Globe ran a story about Zarqawi not having much support from the Arab world because most Muslims were repulsed by his tactics and atrocities but just didn’t speak out. Well, that’s not true. Remember the massive Muslim demonstrations wishing him to eternal damnation for having bombed the al-Askariyah mosque in Samarra and the hotel in Jordan where he murdered Muslims attending a wedding celebration? They didn’t appear to have any difficulty speaking out. Still, Zarqawi remained an icon of terrorism. Remember, that other cave-dwelling monster dubbed him the “prince of al-Qaeda.” Whew, and I thought he had no redeeming human value. Who knew that normal people sever and store human heads?

And of course, what news cycle that includes one of the most stupendous of events since perhaps the capture of Saddam the Butcher would be complete without the infamous congressional Johns

(Murtha and Kerry) chiming in. Who better than they to carp? After all, they have the moral and political carte blanche to habitually denigrate our troops without an investigation and in the absence of evidence. Why is it that Murtha and Kerry, who incidentally served in Vietnam, appear far more interested in trashing our military than in Zarqawi’s death? Why do the media, and many on the left, seem more disturbed by the prospect that he may have suffered before expiring and whether proper Islamic burial rites will be respected than they were when our troops’ bar-b-qued corpses were hung from a bridge?

Whether or not the left and the “mainstream” media choose to celebrate the momentous occasion that Zarqawi’s well-earned execution is, it would be political suicide to dismiss it entirely. John Murtha, who, after sheepishly admitting that Zarqawi’s death was “significant,” refused to acknowledge that it wouldn’t have occurred had U.S. troops not been on the ground in Iraq. Atta boy, way to support our troops, eh? He went on to complain about the monetary cost of being in Iraq and claimed that Iraq was engaged in a civil war of which al-Qaeda was only a small part stating, “I think they’ll settle this themselves, just like we settled our civil war ourselves. . . . We’ve diverted ourselves from the real war on terrorism to the war in Iraq.” Uh, Johnny, small part? Running around lopping off the heads of “infidels,” blowing up mosques and murdering thousands of people in the name of Allah to establish an al-Qaeda terrorist state is the real war on terrorism, not merely a small part of a civil war? Are you sure you’ve been in the House chamber and not with Marion Barry smoking something?

And on John Kerry’s website was the following statement:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a brutal terrorist and his death strikes a blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq. This ruthless thug who abused the true meaning of Islam was an intruder on Iraqi soil and it’s good news that he’s dead. Our troops did an incredible job hunting him down and destroying him, and all of America is proud of their skill and commitment.

However, in typical Kerry doublespeak, the statement continued as follows:

The outcome of what is now a civil war in Iraq cannot be determined by American military force. It has to be solved by Iraqis brought together to hammer out their differences. Period. It is time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. . . . Our soldiers are fighting and dying in the third war in Iraq –– not . . . the war President Bush said had to be fought against armies of foreign jihadists, but an escalating civil war between Sunni and Shia.

But I thought you told us this war is fueled by the insurgency, not intruders or foreign jihadists? Wait a minute. You can’t believe that because then you wouldn’t be able to justify your “cut and run” policy. Is that perhaps the reason why you now claim Iraq is nothing more than an internal civil war, or is it merely to deprive Bush of any credit for eliminating Zarqawi? Funny, but even the Washington Post recently noted that “the stated aim of Zarqawi . . . was to foment bloody sectarian strife between his fellow Sunni Muslims and members of the Shiite majority.” Unless I’m wrong, Zarqawi was from Jordan. Maybe I’m misguided, but wasn’t it you and your ilk who have repeatedly lambasted the President and the military for not having captured Zarqawi? Haven’t you continually stated that the President’s war on terrorism is an abject failure because we haven’t got bin Laden? Now that we’ve rendered the “prince of al-Qaeda” room temperature, it’s no big deal? Is that what you’ll tell us if and when we give him bin Laden as his roommate? Probably. And until then, I’ll bet you’ll keep reminding us what a failure our government and our military are.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say the media and the left are trying to downplay and diminish the significance of killing Zarqawi along with several of his co-conspirators and uncovering a veritable “treasure trove” of intelligence. But that would presume they have some desire in not seeing good news for the U.S. out of Iraq: like their obsession to prevent Bush from getting credit for any achievement or to use it as a political exploit in furtherance of regaining power.

I recognize that reveling in an enemy’s demise is normally not appropriate, noble, or politically correct. However, this time, I think I can find it in my heart to make an exception. He was not the average, ordinary, garden-variety enemy. In fact, even among terrorists, Zarqawi was a psychopathic homicidal monster. A terrorist’s terrorist, you might say.

Indeed it was a great day for the President, the American military, the new Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, the world and yes, even Islam. Like it or not, it was a monumental accomplishment that couldn’t have come at a more precipitous time. No, it won’t end terrorism or the war on terrorism. But isn’t it grand that he won’t ever behead anyone again? Isn’t it fabulous that we nailed several of his associates? Isn’t it wonderful that after eliminating him and demolishing his “safe house,” twenty-eight stockpiles of weapons were obtained, hundreds of terrorists have been identified and papers documenting details of a plan to intentionally incite a war between us and Iran were discovered? But best of all, his successors, and other terrorists, may not sleep as well. And that should help us sleep better.

Ding-dong Zarqawi’s dead!

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Prof. Justice: Stupid Student Tricks

STUPID STUDENT TRICKS

Now that the Spring 2006 semester has concluded, I have once again been barraged with email from disgruntled students angry at their horrendous examination performance, er, rather, at me for having the unmitigated gall to assign a grade based on that performance. I should note that my grading policy, which is clearly stated in the course syllabus, affords each student the opportunity to drop the lowest quiz score and receive the final examination score as the final grade if it exceeds a student’s weighted average (based on the nominal percentage value of each course requirement). Below are actual emails from real students, exactly as I received it. My responses follow. The names have been changed to protect the brainless:

(Gretchen) Hi Professor, How are you? Hope you still remember me. I was so shocked this morning when I found that I got a grade C on the course that I took with you. I studied so hard for this one, never missed any of your class. I am just wondering, if the “C” was a typo or what? It is very important for me to get a good grade, most of my grades are A, I have never received such a low one. I was almost kill myself when I first saw this ……Please, please help me double check this record, and kindly reply to me at your convenience.

I understand your frustration but please, don’t kill yourself. I have no doubt that you worked hard. Unfortunately, working hard doesn’t determine your grade. Performance does. Your final exam score was 68 and your course average, as correctly calculated, is 75 which translates to a C.

No, you don’t understand what this first C I have ever got means to me: I am a Golden Key member, and my GPA was always kept above 3.875 before I got this grade. With a future plan of going to a graduate school, I have been studying very hard ever since I attended this college. With a grade C in my record, I will not be able to be accepted by a good graduate school or to receive scholarships in the future. It is not only a better letter that you could give me, it is a very huge impact that you could make to my future. Please, please kindly reconsider it again, I always respect you and say good words about you to my schoolmates and other fellow students, you don’t understand how disappointed this C has made me. Please, kindly, make it higher than C.

Thank you x 1000 times!

Exactly what grade do you want me to “make it higher than C?” C+? B? B+? Why stop there? Why not just ask me to make it an A? Better yet, why don’t I just give every student a B or even an A, regardless of performance. Or maybe I should just ask students if they worked hard and if they say that they did, give them an A? Does this sound silly to you? Well it should, because it is. You’ll forgive me if I sound rude, but I find it impossible to understand how you or any student would seriously expect me to just give a higher grade because you worked hard, you’ve never received a C before, your GPA might be lowered, you won’t get into a good graduate school or won’t be able to procure future scholarships (which, by the way, isn’t true). If your logic is correct, which clearly it is not, would I also be responsible for your inability to find a job? One thing that you most certainly should have realized about me is that you will not further your cause by inferring that somehow I will be responsible for the consequences of your poor performance. I am stunned that you do not seem the least bit embarrassed to even make such a request. Your performance is solely your responsibility, not mine. I cannot and will not, in good conscience, give something that was not earned. It demeans the significance of achievement and personal responsibility. Moreover, it cheapens the value of every other student’s performance. Lastly, it is not the right thing to do for you either. I do, however, wish you much success in your future efforts.


~~~

(Laura) Dear Professor, Is it possible for you to give me a C- instead of the D+ so I don’t have to take this class over. Please i am begging I have been to everyone of your class I also Passed the midterm exam. Please reply to me if you could change this grade thanks.

First, understand that I don’t “give” anyone their grade. All grades are earned. More important, I don’t understand how you can seriously make such a request considering that your quiz average, with the lowest grade dropped, was 53 and your final exam score was 57. In other words, 60% (40% final exam and 20% quiz average) of your semester’s performance was a failure. And your midterm score, which wasn’t exactly stellar, was 70. So, exactly why is it that you feel you earned a C- ?

I really need a C- because I am on academic probation and I do not want to be kicked out of school. I really hope that you could help me out. I know I have not really done that well but I was always there for class. Please professor. I am really trying to improve and I hope that you could assist me in doing so.

But that doesn’t answer the question, which is, what about your performance on the course requirements warrants a C-? It seems unfair of you to ask that I “assist” you in your effort to improve by “giving” you a grade that you did not earn because it assumes that somehow I will be responsible for your being kicked out of school. I’m sure there are reasons why you are in the position that you are, but it is nevertheless your doing, not mine.

~~~


(Jay) Do you truly believe that I deserve a “D” for this course?

What I believe is that you are confused. The course syllabus, which I’m sure you read and are very familiar with, states on Page 3, Note 11, “there is no Constitutional right to receive an “A” (or any other grade) in this Course. All grades must be earned and are based exclusively upon your performance on the examinations, quizzes, attendance and participation.” Precisely what about this do you not understand?

Frankly, your implication that I would assign a grade for any reason other than that which is deserved is offensive and inappropriate. Moreover, if you are really interested in knowing what grade you “deserved,” you need not look any further than your performance which, according to the average college standard, was sub-par. Actually, you probably deserved a failing grade. You failed the final examination and barely passed the midterm. I even gave you the benefit of the full 5% participation points, despite not having done so in a consistent and meaningful way. Note to yourself; asking what material will be on the exam after announcing it in class numerous times, posting it on the web “blackboard” and outlining it on the Syllabus does not constitute participation. Accordingly, I do indeed believe you deserve a D because it is the grade you earned. I also believe that nothing more needs to be said.

~~~


(Eric) Hi Professor. To tell you the truth I was a little surprised with my grade in your class last semester. I know it is not just a little snobby rather it is very snobby to complain about an A-, but after two semesters this kills my 4.0. It is not just the fact that this runes my average, it is honestly that my parents really care about this. Also, I am really puzzled with the grade, my quiz scours were very good and on the midterm barley anyone did better. Going in to the final exam I was pretty confident that I knew the material pretty well and I thought my writing showed that. I am curios what I got on the final that resulted with the A-, also I am obviously curios if there is anything I can pleas do to get the A that I really want (and, with all do respect, even think I might deserve).

Though I’m gratified that you recognize the absurdity in “complaining” over an A-, it obviously didn’t preclude you from doing so. Perhaps more telling, however, is that you don’t appear to be the least bit embarrassed to tell me the reason you “really want” an A is because an A- “kills my 4.0” that you have so laboriously earned during a whole “two semesters.” And if that isn’t absurd enough, claiming it is I who will be responsible for “ruin[ing]” your average, besides being melodramatic, is inane. Adding “that my parents really care about this” was a nice emotional touch, but otherwise ludicrous. Given your brilliant logic and eloquent articulation, however, I am disappointed that you didn’t ask for an A+. Then, next semester, when a professor has the audacity to “give” you an A-, you’ll have extra points available to offset your “ruined” 4.0 GPA. I do agree that your quiz scores were very good. Actually, your quiz average (after having dropped the lowest score) was 100 which is not just very good. It’s perfect. However, quizzes represent only 20% of your final grade. I also awarded you the entire 5% for class participation despite it having been substantially less than your classmates. Your midterm score, which constitutes 30% of your final grade, was 88. You’ll note that 88 is distinguishably different from 100: 100 is perfect; 88 is very good. But very good is neither perfect nor close to perfect. So, just as you seem to be puzzled over your “extremely good” A-, which is somewhere between perfect/ excellent (100) and very good “88”, I am equally puzzled that you either didn’t read or didn’t notice, despite my bringing it to the class’ attention the first day of the course, Page 3, Paragraph 11 of the course Syllabus which provides as follows:

Contrary to what seem to be popularly-held notions, there is no Constitutional right to receive an “A” (or any other grade) in this Course. All grades must be earned and are based exclusively upon your performance on the examinations, quizzes, attendance and participation as indicated above. There are NO extra credit options.

In other words, feeling “pretty confident that I knew the material pretty well” and thinking your writing “showed that” is not relevant. What is relevant is your performance, not only on the final, but in the course. As my policy clearly states, you’re not entitled to an “A” simply because you think you deserved one. Actually deserving it is required. In the future, you may want to consider evaluating your actual performance before spouting nonsensical statements. There is never a substitute for personal responsibility.

It appears to me that these students all suffer from an inability to accept responsibility for themselves. Sadly, such students seem to be in the majority. At the end of every semester, I receive email like this. In my day (which wasn’t long ago - I’m not that old, yet) no student would dare engage in such discourse. While there may be many explanations why many students now do, I believe it is primarily a manifestation of parental failure and political posturing. Parents can’t or won’t instill children with the proper morals, values and discipline that students need to learn how to accept responsibility for themselves. They intimidate teachers and school officials into inaction by threatening to file complaints or bring legal action over virtually anything. Our politicians, for their part, are more concerned with pandering to their electorate, jumping in front of a camera or relentlessly playing the blame game. Teacher unions demand more money for “education,” yet classroom conditions don’t improve and salaries don’t go up. Tenure, which is often a form of concealed protectionism, renders it difficult to remove ineffective or incompetent teachers from the classroom. Outcome-based “education” and social promotion eliminate the time-honored value of achievement based on performance rather than effort or age. The result: failure to implement an effective system of natural and logical consequences for students’ performance. Then, parents, teachers and politicians point their proverbial finger’s at each other because students aren’t learning.

Growing up, I learned several very important lessons. If I wanted to achieve something, I had to work hard for it. But merely working hard, by itself, didn’t mean that I would succeed. And if I did not achieve my desired objective, I would nevertheless have obtained a benefit by accomplishing something from which to improve upon. Such lessons were learned, first and foremost, from academic examinations and other types of competition. On many occasions, my performance, for whatever reason, merited neither an “A” nor a “win.” I learned from it and figured out how to improve. Nowadays, however, we seem to be preoccupied with whether children are going to feel bad about themselves. And instead of building their self esteem by letting them experience the “pain” of failure, many feel it is better to simply remove them from it. Social promotion, outcome-based education and even no-score sports may be a “feel good” approach to building self-esteem, but destroys character development. Sure, parents don’t enjoy seeing their children disappointed and dejected over their poor performance at anything. But that’s precisely what parents are for: to guide children through those difficult situations in preparation of life’s challenges. So when parents blame the teachers, the board of education and the politicians for their children’s failures, what do you think their children will learn?

Recently, during a New York City Department of Education meeting, parents complained that their children are being overwhelmed with the city’s plan to regularly test their academic achievement. A woman from Washington Heights exclaimed, “Why be stressing our kids out with more tests? [sic] . . . These are little kids - too many assessments will not be conducive to learning.” Come again? That sounds like she needs to go back to elementary school and learn a few things - like logical reasoning and English grammar. Other parents complained that the tests would take away from critical teaching time in the classroom and would place more emphasis on simply learning for a test. Huh? Randi Weingarten, president of the city’s teachers union, argued that “in addition to the other high-stakes state tests already in place - this is simply formalizing what we’ve already seen, namely too much testing.” Are you kidding me? Learning in preparation for a test is a problem? I find it impossible to believe that one can make such an argument without turning red from embarrassment. Incidentally, I’ve seen the material that students in the third and fifth grade are tested on. Trust me. These tests don’t measure brilliance. In fact, they ought to be called illiteracy tests, not assessment tests. Any child merely sitting in a classroom, absent a learning disability, should have no difficulty passing them.

The quality of our education system has deteriorated far below that which it once was, mostly because parents, for some inexplicable reason, demand their children be relieved from responsibility rather than assisting them in embracing it. Consequently, when they take my course, as college juniors and seniors ostensibly in their major, they rarely possess the intellectual capability and the personal responsibility to succeed. And the only thing they learned is to blame someone else for their failures - starting with me.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Prof. Justice: Selling Security?

Ezzie's note: Charlie, even you and DovBear would like this one, I think.
Previously by Prof. Justice: Holiday Correctness, Terminate Tookie, Fire & Hire, Democrats' Investment in Defeat, Dubya Not So Dumbya, State of the Obstructocrats.
SELLING SECURITY?

Now that Dubai Ports World announced its intention to sell the British company, P & O, the purchase of which triggered a symphony of opposition, the issue of who should be permitted to operate, control, manage or have access to our ports appears to have lost some steam. The debate itself, however, remains on the fast track of debate. Unfortunately, after listening to several weeks of opinions, arguments and political discourse, I have yet to achieve clarity on this issue, let alone form an opinion. When I first heard this reported, I dismissed it the same way I would have had a person living in Iowa claimed to have been abducted by aliens: “Yeah, right.” But the very thought that a middle east company, ostensibly wholly owned by the United Arab Emirates government, would be operating or managing six of our major ports is indeed alarming.

Publicity of the DP World deal instantly generated sharp criticism from the overwhelming majority of congressional Democrats and Republicans. Unlike the usual bitter partisan rhetoric, however, they were clamoring in unison to oppose it. Even traditional media opponents lined up behind each other in agreement. It is a strange day when the New York Times, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post all concurred. Stranger yet, Rush Limbaugh squarely differed from that of conservatives. And perhaps the most bizarre spectacle came when President Bush and former President Carter both concluded that the deal posed no security concerns to the United States. As baffling as these responses may be, perhaps the most perplexing issue, which I have yet been able to convincingly answer, is whether the resulting hysteria was grounded in reality or merely emanated from a gross distortion of an ordinary business transaction.

One week after the media broke the story, the president, seeking to reassure us, stated, “We wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America.”

You’ll forgive me, but considering that he’s already had me scratching my head because of his failure to effectively address and deal with border security, the prescription debacle and Harriet Miers, “trust me, “ isn’t very comforting. Nor is it reassuring that the Treasury Department defended its approval by asserting that the deal presented no security risk. This becomes more apparent after learning that several of the basic security provisions typically required when any foreign company does business in the U.S. were waived. For instance, DP World would not have been required to keep a copy of all documents generated on our soil and be made available for inspection upon demand by authorized government officials. Another provision waived for DP would have required the presence of an American liaison or “overseer” to monitor all its business dealings with the United States.

To begin with, it should be precisely understood what DP World’s “take over” of the six ports really means. Our ports are actually owned by local governmental authorities. As for the ports’ security, nothing would have changed. The Coast Guard, the Customs and Border protection control and other various local law enforcement agencies would have continued to be in exclusive control of all security, inspection and safekeeping issues. All that DP World would have been responsibility for is “terminal operation.” A terminal operator merely arranges for the logistical operation of terminal cargo, i.e., to protect cargo while ensuring that it gets from one location at the terminal to another at the terminal and holds it until it is picked up. In addition, DP World would not have been the only company managing terminals at our ports. We have many foreign port companies operating at terminals throughout the United States. In fact, DP World would have been managing only one of the five terminals at the New York and New Jersey Port Authority and only two of fourteen in Baltimore. Homeland Security officials have explained that the terminal management process is a minor portion of the security process. Containers carrying cargo are screened before they even leave the port of departure. From there, Homeland Security determines what containers should be searched based upon a risk analysis. A management company has no part in that process.

Yet, there appears to be good reason for concern. It isn’t merely an issue of profiling to be wary of a middle east government owned company having being permitted anywhere near our ports. True, we have British, Danish and other foreign companies performing port management duties, but then again, the source of our security concerns have not emanated form those countries. While it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, indeed most are not, virtually all terrorists are fundamental Wahabists. Even the 9/11 Commission Chairman, former New Jersey Governor Tom Keane, opposed this deal. His commission determined that two of the nineteen hijackers were from the UAE and that the UAE was the primary financial facilitator of 911 by permitting money to flow through its banks which then provided the funding to the homicide-bomber savages.

Several days before the completion of this deal, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: “We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates. Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets.” The UAE was one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan. Our “friends” the Saudis and Pakistan were the others. They also were active participants in the shipment of nuclear components to Libya, North Korea and, yes, Iran. They refuse to recognize Israel and actively participate in an Arab boycott against it. In fact, DP World, which is entirely held by the UAE government through the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), actively participates in the Arab boycott. Government officials have made it clear that the UAE remains in effect, is enforced and will continue to be enforced. They even have an office dedicated to examining certificates of origin as a means of determining whether a product or any of its components were made in Israel. U.S. law prohibits companies from complying with such boycotts and, last year, fined companies on several occasions for boycott-related activities all of which were connected to the UAE government. As if this were bad enough, the UAE continues to maintain a close association Hamas and have promised to increase their aid to them now that Hamas is in power. Lastly, in a recently released U.S. military document, a June 2002 message from Al Qaeda to UAE government officials, warned that during the previous three years, their operatives successfully infiltrated key UAE government agencies.

On the other hand, since 9/11, the UAE has been ostensibly our best Arab ally in the war against terror. They have taken substantial measures to close the holes in their financial system that permitted the flow of money to the 9/11 terrorists. They work closely with our intelligence agencies to provide significant intelligence resulting the prevention of terrorist operations, disruption of terror network cells and even the apprehension of terrorists. In addition, the fundamental Wahabist terrorists can come from anywhere. The shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was from Brittan. Should we stop doing business with British companies also?

I understand that there are foreign diplomacy concerns for the President to consider. In the event, inevitably or otherwise, that either preemptive military action in Iran or defensive military action in Israel becomes necessary, we would need access to their air and/or naval bases. I realize that in the end we may need “allies” in that region of the world and the UAE is one of the most helpful of the Arab countries. But make no mistake. Ultimately, they will have their best interests ahead of ours and like it or not, they have to maintain diplomatic relations with Syria, Saudi Arabia and even Iran. So, when it is in their interest to align with us, they will, and when it isn’t, is there any doubt with whom they be affiliated?

Finally, President Bush, for his part, made some colossal blunders. First, he didn’t know of the deal until approximately two weeks before the media did, and even after learning of it, he permitted it to be completed as if it were business as usual. In the context of our sensitivity to terrorism and security issues since 9/11, his failure and that of his administration to anticipate and address the public outrage is inexcusable. Unfortunately, the modus operandi of this administration is that when challenged, it often takes weeks, sometimes months to respond. And even when they do, they often fail to sufficiently and effectively communicate with the American people. Simply reiterating, “Trust me” or “If the deal does not go through, what kind of mixed message does that send to other countries?” just doesn’t work.

Is it possible that the President’s only justification for his insistence that the deal presented no security issues one of political correctness? Sure, anything’s possible. Not likely though. It seems to me there are far more effective ways of accomplishing that goal, not the least of which is vigilant law enforcement and national security measures. Having said that, Arabs and Arab countries must nevertheless recognize that we have real, legitimate security concerns emanating specifically from Muslim fundamentalists, political correctness be damned. In the end, it could very well be that this deal would have been business as usual without incident. If so, then the hysteria over the deal would have been for naught. Then again, such a deal could indeed lead to catastrophic events. So I suppose that my question ought to be...

Is it worth the risk?
Professor Justice practices Criminal Law in New York, teaches trial advocacy, and is a Professor of Business Law.

Friday, February 10, 2006

Professor Justice: State Of The Obstructocrats

Previously by Prof. Justice: Holiday Correctness, Terminate Tookie, Fire & Hire, Democrats' Investment in Defeat, Dubya Not So Dumbya.
STATE OF THE OBSTRUCTOCRATS (EDITED)

Good evening. I am pleased to report that the state of our obstructionist party has never been brighter. Highlighting our many achievements this past year is our success in branding the Bushies and their associates as corrupt, incompetent, racists and bigots who only care about rich, white, Christian, Republican males. The fact that both of the President’s Secretaries of State have been black, the current one being female, is irrelevant. That is, of course, as long as we continue to claim that they, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, are not “real black people” because they don’t dress like hipstuhs and act like gangstuhs.

As for the economy, we’ve had a very tough hurdle. The fact is that the President took office with an economy headed toward recession. Since then, productivity has grown an average of 3.5 percent per year, inflation has remained low, and unemployment, which now stands at 4.7 percent, has dropped. Even more problematic is that the events of September 11, two wars and two disastrous hurricanes neither hurt the economy nor exacerbated recovery. Yet, home ownership is at an all-time high. In fact, the economy has been doing so well, the Federal Reserve has steadily raised interest rates to preserve it. Until recently, we’ve been able to focus on the lack of job growth as shoestring evidence that the economy is actually tanking, but with the recent creation of several hundred thousand jobs, it is necessary for us to change tactics. Now, we’ll be forced to argue those jobs are menial. Regardless, I remain hopeful that by the end of Bush’s presidency, we’ll have succeeded in spinning his economy as the worst since the Great Depression.

Perhaps our greatest achievement this year was the defeat of the President’s Social Security reforms. Had we lost on this issue, the foundation of our party would have been reduced to rubble. For nearly three quarters of a century, we remained in the majority by incessantly clamoring how Republicans don’t support it and want to throw old people on the street. One of our best slogans came back in the nineties when we said GOP stands for “Get Old People.” To lose on this issue would be the embarrassment of embarrassments. I am well aware that Social Security has four trillion dollars of unfunded liability and must therefore be reformed. Otherwise, there will come a time when it will either be bankrupt or be restricted to distributing a mere fraction of today’s benefits. Sure, private accounts would help, if even for a small portion of the funding, but then we’ll have less of our fellow Americans’ money to spend. That is precisely why, despite being a shameful display of pure partisanship, your wild applause in response to President Bush’s statement that Congress failed to pass Social Security reforms last year was magnificent. Yes, toward the end of President Clinton’s term we publicly acknowledged that the system needed to be fixed. So, to avoid the appearance of being portrayed as flip-flopping hypocrites, we must prevent the passage of any reform bill until we regain the majority in Congress. Then, we’ll be able to implement a feasible and efficient solution: Increase FICA withholding and cut benefits. And we’ll be able to blame it on the Republicans.

But without a doubt, our most successful campaign to date has been the relentless drumbeat that Bush is, as Harry Belafonte and Cindy Sheehan say, “the world’s greatest terrorist.” I should also take this time to extend my gratitude to Hollywood and the mainstream media for their assistance in repeating and emphasizing its coverage of actors, actresses and musicians who continually bash the President, the troops and the country. I am particularly grateful to the press for downplaying milestone events, such as the liberation of fifty million people from two tortuous and barbaric tyrants, establishment of new schools, election of a democratic government and improvement of people’s quality of life. Please don’t tell us about the recent polls indicating more than seventy percent of Iraqis say their lives have improved. And whatever you do, please continue to suppress video of US soldiers playing with Iraqi children and giving them candy.

My friends, it is fortuitous that no WMDs were found. This was the best source for persuading the country of Bush’s real desire to get us in a war: Oil; and to award fat defense contracts to his buddies while exacting revenge on Hussein for trying to kill Papa Bush. I know the rest of the world also thought there were WMDs (well, except maybe France and Germany - whose leaders knew they were there) as did the prior administration, but that was then and this is now. I’m sure you haven’t heard this, but a former high level Iraqi government official recently said Iraq did have WMDs but transferred them to Syria while we pressured the President to waste time seeking UN approval. But don’t worry, the media won’t pick this one up.

I also wish to express special appreciation to the patriarch of our party, Sen. Ted Kennedy, for leading the charge by eloquently screaming on the Senate floor, “In fact, the torture chambers and prisons of Iraq were reopened . . . under U.S. management.” Thank you for incessantly reminding the country and the world of Bush’s “lie, after lie, after lie, after lie . . . ,” only so he could be a wartime President to willfully and purposefully place troops in danger. Amazingly, we’ve even been able to convince Americans the war on terror, aside from being ill-conceived, understaffed, under funded, and mismanaged, is unnecessary. True, John Kerry’s “I actually did vote for the eighty-seven million before I voted against it” blunder hurt, but it’s already been forgotten. Moreover, his rhetoric that our military “terrorizes Iraqi civilians” makes up for it.

Before bidding you a good night, I would like to recognize a special guest who is with us tonight.

Please welcome William Blum, author of Rogue State, the book from which Osama bin Laden quoted during his last recorded message. If you recall, Bin Laden said:
And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book ‘Rogue State,’ which states in its introduction: ‘If I were President, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First, I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all.’
Mr. Blum, tickled that bid Laden quoted him, stated, “‘I’m glad . . . I was not turned off by such an endorsement. . . . I’m not repulsed, and I’m not going to pretend I am.’” Blum went on to reiterate our party’s mantra: “It’s the American intervention abroad, stupid!” That’s what creates our enemies and renders us less safe. The abject hatred of western culture by Islamofascists has nothing to do with it. Mr. Blum, we thank you and salute you. You are truly a great American.

Yet, even with all our accomplishments, we cannot rest on our laurels. We must stay the course and remain focused on obstruction. We must ridicule the Bush administration for aggrandizing and politicizing the threat of terrorism, and then trash him for not doing enough to fight it. And when he secretly intercepts communications of either known or suspected terrorists located outside the country, we’ll accuse him of trampling our civil rights by eavesdropping on American citizens who have no connection to terrorism. Not that there has actually been any case where a citizen’s civil rights have actually been violated, but it does tip our hand to terror thugs around the world. We must capitalize on every opportunity to publicize the NSA’s covert eavesdropping of our Islamofascist enemies abroad, which will stop at nothing to destroy us. It is also necessary that we block the Patriot Act’s renewal. We must do and say anything to prevent the President from succeeding in his fight against terrorism in order to excoriate him for not “connecting the dots.” Besides, if we pressure him enough to withdraw from Iraq, he may leave so fast that a terrorist vacuum is left behind, exacerbating the risk to our troops. Then we’ll really have what to say.

My fellow obstructionists, the state of our obstructionist party is as strong as it’s ever been. Let’s hope that we can build on this strong foundation, put partisan politics aside and work together to insure that the current administration ends in utter failure. Let’s face it. It’s the only way we’ll ever regain the presidency and control of Congress. It certainly won’t be because of our ideas. You’re right Mr. President. Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy. But, please, give us a break. It’s all we’ve got.

Good night, may G-d bless you, and may G-d bless the United States of America.
Professor Justice practices Criminal Law in New York, teaches trial advocacy, and is a Professor of Business Law.
Technorati tags: , , , .

Monday, January 09, 2006

Professor Justice: Dubya Not So Dumbya

Previously by Prof. Justice: Holiday Correctness, Terminate Tookie, Fire & Hire, Democrats' Investment in Defeat.

Note from Prof. Justice:

Since posting my previous piece, “Democrats' Investment in Defeat,” I have received some critical comments from people on and off the blog. While some of the criticism is aimed, as usual, at specific statements and arguments, most of the comments are directed at its sharp sarcastic mode. In response, I would like to clarify a few points. First, it was intended to be an emotional diatribe, not a scholarly or analytical thesis. Second, for those of you who have read my previous posts, you have undoubtedly recognized that my typical writing style employs a weighty dose of sarcasm. Such a style is not uncommon among writers, particularly in political commentaries and its purpose is to entertain readers while simultaneously illustrating a point. Having said that, I readily acknowledge that my use of sarcasm in “Democrats Investment in Defeat” was, as we say, “over the top.” There is a significant distinction between using language to label individuals and/ or groups in order to characterize and articulate a point, and mere ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, I blurred that distinction. Don’t misunderstand me. Some of my posts will be more emotional, some will be more analytical and others will merely advance some speculative interpretation of a series of events, such as the following piece on the appointment and confirmation proceedings of Judge Samuel Alito. Regardless, I am humbled that you are reading and grateful for all your comments, regardless of whether they are intended to praise, disagree or criticize.

DUBYA: NOT SO DUMBYA

(All quotes attributed herein are intended to convey the sum and substance of the speaker’s statement and is not necessarily the speaker’s exact words. In all instances, however, the meaning of such statements will be unchanged.)

Something that has not attracted the same level of attention from the press, but is perhaps more intriguing than his successful navigation through Iraq, is President Bush’s brilliant orchestration of the recent Supreme Court nominees. The judiciary, more than any other entity in our system of government, exists specifically to pass judgement on the delineation right and wrong. This is why achieving a liberal majority, or at least preserving a divided Court with a fifth justice as a “moderate” (read: liberal activist who will legislate from the bench), is of paramount importance to the left. But their hope of accomplishing their objective is all but extinguished and will soon vanish for decades to come. And they know it.

Now more than ever before in our history do we need the Supreme Court to adhere to the authority granted to it in the Constitution: To serve as the supreme and final arbiter of the law. In the 1803 landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court defined the judiciary’s review power by stating that “the province and duty of the judicial department is to say what the law is. . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” Nowhere does it even imply that they are permitted to make their own rule if they don’t like the ones before them. The President must choose justices who will not misuse their power by manipulating the law according to their ideology. Given what’s at stake, one has to wonder whether the Democrats would attempt to block any judge the President would nominate.

Knowing, however, that breaking a filibuster would be impossible (thanks to the “gang of fourteen,” the President skillfully selected John Roberts to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Conner. Before the President’s press conference announcing Robert’s appointment was even finished, the left began their evaluation of Roberts. The left was furious that President Bush selected a conservative white male to replace a “moderate.” But I don’t believe that the President originally intended to appoint Roberts to fill O’Conner’s seat. The President undoubtedly expected Chief Justice Rhenquist to leave the Court first and wanted Roberts to succeed him as Chief Justice. An old fashioned conservative at the tender young age of fifty, Roberts would be appointed to steer the direction of the court for years. And best of all, Bush averted a certain bloodbath confirmation hearing had he nominated Scalia or Thomas as Chief Justice. Of course, in the end, O’Conner stepped down first, but the President didn’t change course. There was no need. If Roberts survived the confirmation hearing, then as soon as Rhenquist stepped down (or passed away as it turned out), the President would elevate him to Chief Justice. That would be impossible for the liberals to block, for a block would require a vote against Roberts. Being that they just voted for him, a vote against Roberts would seem very hypocritical (and besides, not everybody enjoys voting against things after they vote for them). This would be too difficult to justify, especially since the balance of the court would not have changed. Remember, O’Conner agreed to remain until a replacement was confirmed. There would still be only four conservatives, at most, on the Court. This is precisely what made Roberts such an attractive choice to replace Rhenquist from the very beginning. Essentially, he was Bork-proof. Plus, there was no reason to think that he wouldn’t sail though the confirmation hearing seeing as though he is clearly far brighter, sharper and more articulate than any senator.

When the president nominated Harriet Miers, it raised eyebrows on both sides. For the liberals, the chance that she would turn out to be an O’Conner was better than someone who was clearly a Scalia or Thomas. Of course, they were hardly lauding O’Conner’s “moderation” in the 2000 election aftermath initiated by Gore and the Democrats by refusing to comply with Florida Election Law (which required a recount of the entire state rather than the three counties they figured on winning). The Court decided that case with O’Conner being the swing vote as she often was. Nevertheless, with the advent of a possible “moderate” in Miers, O’Conner served their purposes and was held up as the weathervane of moderation that all other justices should aspire to. For the conservatives though, the Miers appointment burst the Bush support bubble. Conventional thought was that after all the years they had suffered and waited in agony to elect a conservative president who would appoint original intent justices and achieve a conservative majority on the Supreme court, this was the moment they had longed for. Through all the “stealth” appointments who were billed as conservative, believed to be originalists and who were easily confirmed by liberals, most ended up otherwise, e.g., Souter, Stephens, Berger, Blackmun and even O’Conner. And now, they were once again sold out by an incompetent President seemingly determined to placate the Democrats. He had already got his man in as the new Chief, so why not compromise a little. Take the path of least resistance rather than engage in a fight. Though as hard as he appeared to sell Miers to the right, the President was never able to convince the conservative faithful that she would get the job done simply because he said so.

Though Bush did make a serious tactical error by reducing Miers’ appointment to one of religious conviction, he had little choice. The seven senators, a/k/a/ “Gang of Fourteen” (seven Republicans and seven Democrats) had clearly communicated their unwillingness to do battle for the President’s nominees. He was left with no option but to resort to a compromise candidate who would pass through the left. How else do you explain the contrast between his appointment of Roberts, who was arguably the best possible person for Chief Justice, and his appointment of Miers, who has never been a judge (although throughout history, many have not)? Because the seven republican senators from the Gang of Fourteen left him without any other choice. However, the conservative base, both inside and outside the Senate, roared in opposition and begged the President not to squander their golden opportunity to return the Court to its rightful role. The president responded with Samuel Alito, another conservative white male.

Confident that his base is now behind him, the only way for the Democrats to rally a filibuster to prevent Alito from receiving a floor vote is with all seven of their maverick senators, plus a few conservatives. That is highly unlikely to happen because the principle part of the Gang of Fourteen’s compromise was that absent “extraordinary circumstances,” they will not participate in any filibuster of judicial nominees. Many of those senators have already gone on record stating that merely disagreeing with the political philosophy of a candidate does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” Nevertheless, many Democrat senators have been and will continue to desperately vilify and demonize Judge Alito. This is because after having gradually lost their power since 1994, when the Republicans first took control of the House of Representatives, they presently control nothing. They lost both the executive and legislative branches of government at the ballot box. Their last hope of accomplishing through the judiciary what they can’t at the ballot box is to gain control of the judiciary by blocking the confirmation of any Bush appointee. How else do you explain the hypocrisy and hysterics of their recent rhetoric?

Since Alito’s appointment, the Democrats and other leftist organizations have repeatedly attempted to paint him as a racist, bigot and sexist. Ted Kennedy implied that Alito is a racist because there are “troubling aspects of Alito’s record in regards to civil rights and his commitment to ‘equal justice under the law,’ that he “couldn’t find anything in his writings that showed he is opposed to discrimination” and that “average Americans don’t get a fair shake in his courtroom.” Evidence of this, senator? Only his job application submitted to the Reagan Administration in which he acknowledged membership in a ideological conservative organization and belonging to a club that allegedly restricted membership to females and minorities. Ted, have you forgotten that you party’s majority leader, Robert Byrd, for more than a decade was a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan? Are you aware that the modern Democrat’s patriarch, FDR, appointed former Ku Klux Klan member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court? This from the same person who, during Chief Justice Roberts’ hearings, attempted to cross-examine Roberts by quoting from one of his opinions. The quote, however, was actually Roberts quoting the trial testimony of a witness. Pat Leahy wants to know whether he will “allow the government to intrude on our constitutional rights by authorizing illegal wiretapping.” That’s like asking, “If confirmed, do you intend to stop beating your wife? Chuck Schumer is demanding that Judge Alito provide his personal opinions on political issues such as abortion and civil rights and how he intends to rule on them in the future so that, “he won’t swing ‘the fulcrum of the court’ to the right by replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and that he is more than just a darling of the conservatives.” Schumer justified his demand by stating that it is critical for Alito to “fully” answer all such questions because he has written extensively on these issues as a judge over the last decade and a half. But a few months ago, Schumer demanded the same from Roberts precisely because he had not written on these issues during his eighteen months as a judge. Sorry Charlie, the real reason you make this demand is because, as you said, “I have serious concerns about that record. . . . You give the impression of being a meticulous legal navigator, but, in the end, you always seem to chart a rightward course.” And you can’t stand that. Understand that no judge of even modest competence would dare issue an opinion on a case without having first established the facts. It is therefore patently incomprehensible to expect Judge Alito to state how he would rule on a case that does not exist and in the absence of any specific facts.

It is interesting that during Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s confirmation hearings, the Republicans, though completely opposed to her far left political and social views, including her openly embracing the idea that there was a constitutional right to an abortion, did not hold that position against her. Instead, they questioned her only with regard to her legal acumen and judicial temperament to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. Schumer, when confronted with this stated, “that was different.” Yeah, because a Democrat appointed her (President Clinton) and they agreed with her views. Perhaps the most honest indication of the Democrat’s motivation to block Judge Alito was House minority leader Nancy Pelosi’s statement that these confirmation hearings were of utmost significance is when she said that it wasn’t good for the country to have one party to be in control of all three branches of government.

So, does Judge Alito have the intellect necessary to bring honor and respect to the Court? Does he possess the judicial temperament necessary to make sure that the court is a body that interprets the law and doesn’t try to write the law? Listening to those he know him, the answer is most definitely. He is probably smarter than most, if not all, the senators and appears to have an unflappable demeanor. His prior judicial conduct indicates that he carefully scrutinizes all the facts and arguments before fairly rendering the best decision based on the law, not his ideology. He has received the highest rating possible as a judicial nominee from the American Bar Association.

As his confirmation seems inevitable, President Bush will have the distinction of not only appointing two new justices to the Supreme Court, one of whom serves as Chief Justice, but will have successfully solidified it as a court that will limit its power to the original intent of the Constitution and the Marbury standard for the next several generations.
Professor Justice practices Criminal Law in New York, teaches trial advocacy, and is a Professor of Business Law.
Technorati tags: , , , .