Fall 2012

There is a book published during the middle of the George W. Bush years titled “What’s The Matter With Kansas?” The general theme of this book and, as I understand it, much of liberal thought on conservatism, can be summed up with a conversation I had with a professor from The Johnson Graduate School of Management. 

We were at an informal weekend seminar course the professor was conducting. We were eating lunch as a small group of about fifteen, and although I do not remember the exact context in which the discussion began, I will never forget her statement. She had made the assumption that I was of like political mind (as all good liberal educators are wont to do, in my experience), and she was relating an anecdote of her young son’s inquiry into the ignorance of low-income conservatives. I do not remember how old she said he was (although pre-teen comes to mind), but the gist of it was the son asked his mother why the poor farmers in upstate New York were overwhelmingly Republican when it was so clearly in their financial interests to vote Democrat. The professor proceeded to laughingly explain, in a very sincere way, that it was because the farmers all thought they would be rich someday, and they wanted to protect their future interests. This reaction would be ridiculous on its face, not to mention extremely offensive, if it didn’t so aptly reflect the stated beliefs of leading liberal thinkers, as evidenced by the aforementioned best selling book to largely the same effect. So let me take this opportunity to offer a counter perspective. 

The assumption is that poor, rural types who are conservative, to take another quote from our esteemed President, cling to their “religion and guns” at the expense of their economic interests because they are too ignorant to know any better. Further, it is the liberal’s job to break those social prejudices down until one day we can finally realize the great, liberal socialist utopia dreamed of for so long. But what if it is the exact opposite of those assumptions that is the truth?

Ask yourself why it is that conservatives would generally want to make voting more of a responsibility (trying to require crazy things like identification and possibly even a single day in which to vote, among other radical and obviously “racist” ideas) and less of a whimsical right (allowing voting anywhere, by anyone, at anytime, in any way, all in the name of “duty”)? Might it be because the very overly complicated and “nuanced” ideas from the left (to whit, a simplified[!] summary: “Leave it to us and we will provide everything to you from cradle to grave and you will barely have to lift a finger! We will make everybody equal! Hallelujah!”) are in fact appeals to our most base, heartfelt, and unthinking emotions? Might we consider giving those ignorant conservatives the slightest credit for thinking their very personal economic interests are actually better cared for by the self interests of macro free market economic principles as seen by even the most cursory--indeed, the most studied--of glances at history?

The answer is obviously an easy one for me. The liberal ideal is the most populist and basic appeal, that which tells us that if we just leave it to the smart people to run and organize everything (from Stalin’s Commanding Heights, if you will), all will be well for us, the common folk. Whereas the conservative message, the one that relies on millions of little, individual, disconnected, and self - interested (invisible) hands working in unsynchronized harmony to lift all of our lives into higher levels of comfort across all socio-economic, racial, and cultural lines and in all aspects of life, is the one that requires the greater understanding and analysis. You will, of course, decide for yourself which makes the most sense. I only ask you to give a little more credit to the farmers in both upstate New York and mid-west Kansas. Along with everywhere else they may try to cling to the very cultures and economic principles that have provided so much to so many, as maybe there isn’t anything wrong with them at all, if you think about it.

In July of 1999, chaos broke out in South Park, Colorado.  A chain of highly expensive lawsuits flooded into local courts.  The first claim in this explosion of litigation proceedings arose from an incident occurring at South Park’s only educational institution, South Park Elementary.  A student named Eric Cartman was awarded damages to be paid in the form of half of his fellow student Stan Marsh’s belongings, the result of a judgment entered against Stan for allegations of sexual harassment.

Judgment was based on the following statute: “The first party of the first panda may sue the second party panda, unless that panda was said panda aforementioned panda.”

The cause for this particular lawsuit and subsequent lawsuits was a mandatory seminar held at South Park Elementary School in the 3d grade classroom of Mr. Garrison, and his teaching assistant Mr. Hat.  In attempting to educate and influence the values of South Park Elementary’s impressionable young students, the school district hired a mascot known as Petey, the Sexual Harassment Panda to teach sexual harassment law in schools.  Petey would later rename himself and become the “Don’t Sue People Panda,” a direct result of his unwaveringly optimistic, reasonable, and altruistic Panda attitude.

Petey’s role in causing the high number of civil cases arising in and against South Park Elementary, did not extend past the initial seminar he gave, (the lecture in which the case of Cartman v. Marsh began) until he was called as an expert witness in the case of Cartman v. South Park Elementary.  In that case, plaintiff Cartman, and his attorney, Gerald Bloflovski, the only attorney in South Park, were awarded 1.3 million dollars in damages from South Park Elementary for its liability in the case of Cartman v. Marsh.  As a result of the lawsuit, Petey lost his job and was outcast to the Island of Misfit Mascots after deciding in his own words, “It’s OK. I get it; there’s no room in the world for pandas.”

Gerald Bloflovski, known better as “Kyle’s Dad,” being the only lawyer in South Park, prospered greatly during the period following his victories against 3rd grader Stan Marsh and South Park Elementary.  As the only attorney available to South Park’s citizens, Kyle’s Dad was able to acquire a great deal of wealth in a very short amount of time.  Gerald’s son Kyle, a student in the same class as both Cartman and Stan, puzzled at why his father was continuing to litigate such a long list of cases.

While outside admiring the size of the new home Kyle’s Dad paid for with his earnings from litigating cases, Kyle approached his father with an inquiry that lead to the following dialogue between them:

Kyle: Dad, if the school has to pay you and Cartman 1.3 million dollars, where does that money come from?

Kyle’s Dad: Well, Kyle, schools have lots of money. You see we all pay taxes and part of that tax money goes to public schools, and it’s from that money that we got our 1.3 million dollars.

            Kyle: And you don’t see a problem with that?

Kyle’s Dad: No. It’s a very fragile system that nature has designed: all things flow into each other.

            Kyle: You’re trying to confuse me now aren’t you?

            Kyle’s Dad: Sort of. Yeah.

Although Kyle’s Dad was acting in good faith to protect the interests of his clients, forces that were arguably beyond his control, brought South Park Elementary to the brink of bankruptcy.  In a matter of days, the excess litigation in South Park reached a critical point, culminating in the case of Everyone v. Everyone, in which Kyle’s Dad represented both plaintiff Everyone and defendant Everyone (else).

In this time of crisis, Kyle, seeming to be the voice of reason in a town full of maddened citizens, all out for money from each other, and the educational system on which they relied, sought out Sexual Harassment Panda at the Island of Misfit Mascots.  As the only expert witness that could possibly intervene in the case of Everyone v. Everyone for the common good, Sexual Harassment Panda agreed to return to South Park with a new name, and to teach “a new message, a message that people would find useful.”  That message would be that “people shouldn’t sue each other all the time.”

In a brilliant piece of testimony the new and improved “Petey the Don’t Sue People Panda” imparted these words of wisdom before the court in the case of Everyone v. Everyone:

“When you sue somebody it hurts everyone.  You sue for money, but where do you think that money comes from?  From the schools, from taxes, from the state, from you.  There’s no such thing as free money.  When you sue somebody, you take money away from parks and schools and charities and put it in your own pocket, and that makes me a saaad Panda.”

Everyone, as well as Everyone, took Don’t Sue People Panda’s message to heart.  For a brief moment Everyone considered filing a claim against Kyle’s Dad for his recent activities as a litigator in South Park.  However, Don’t Sue People Panda’s wisdom held true, and Kyle’s Dad convinced not only himself, but Everyone, that frivolous lawsuits like those that had drained the coffers at South Park Elementary were far too easy to manipulate for personal gain.

In light of this development, the court dismissed the case of Everyone v. Everyone.  It was noted in the court’s record for future reference that “[Not all citizens of South Park] take kindly to cases being dismissed around here!”  Nevertheless, order and fairness were restored to the legal system in South Park, and everyone in town learned a valuable lesson from their experiences in suing everyone else.  Everyone learned that, in fact, they were only hurting themselves, their reputations, and everyone they involved in their lawsuits by bringing too many frivolous and baseless claims to court.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s03e06-sexual-harassment-p...

It all started near the end of September when I spotted a jolly, little snowman peeking out the window at the Pavillions near my house.  He sat proudly next to all the Jack-o-lanterns, as if to say, “What about it!”

Then there was the all too perky Facebook post from my aunt who was thrilled by the prospect of crafting to Christmas Carols and White Christmas, just a few days after Halloween. 

Next, it was the “Forty-five Days ‘Til Christmas!” photo shouting at me from an Instagram post.

All I can think is, you’ve got to be kidding.

Then came a beaming sign of hope.  I knew I liked Nordstrom, but now I had the added incentive to shop there prior to Thanksgiving.  They promised my “Grinchy side,” they wouldn’t be bombarding my senses with red, white, green, and cheer until November 25.

According to USAToday.com, retailers like Costco have had merchandise in stores since September 1. And last year, there was a Christmas party in Times Square in the middle of August.  Really? 

Don’t get me wrong, I love Christmas.  The day after Thanksgiving I will take my daughter to buy a real tree. We will then spend the entire day decorating for the holidays.  The music will play in my house and car until a week or so after the new year.  I even plan on taking my family to the Del Mar Fairgrounds for the Holiday of Lights. 

But why does it have to come so soon?  And better yet, why am I so aggravated by the signs? 

This year, for me, it seems to stem from the lack of mindfulness I have about anything that is unrelated to law school.  These past 13 weeks have come and gone, and in their wake, have left me tired. No, check that, exhausted, depleted, and generally despondent. 

Another 1L and I were talking this afternoon, and she told me she has never felt this tired.  I think it is from all the information our brains are trying to process combined with the obvious reason—lack of sleep. 

So, we are close to the end of this first semester of law school.  Whether a 1L or a 3L, I think it is time to buck up, after all, Thanksgiving is next week.  After that, bring on the lights, the music, and the holiday cheer.  I think we all deserve a little Christmas—or whatever holiday you will celebrate after finals—this year.

PILF PANEL ENCOURAGES TJSL STUDENTS TO BE ACTIVE IN PUBLIC SERVICE

By: Kelly Hayes

The Public Interest Law Foundation held an informative Public Service Panel on Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012, emphasizing the importance of incorporating community service into our law school education and as future attorneys.

Professor Maurice Dyson of CLIMB, Professor Alex Simpson of Street Law and Lori Mendez of the SDCBA Community Service Committee discussed the influences public service can have on the San Diego Community.

“It gives you a sense of direct purpose,” Professor Dyson said of the CLIMB Program.

Crawford Legal Institute & Mentorship Bond (otherwise known as CLIMB) provides an outlet for Crawford high school students. TJSL CLIMB members work as mentors with Crawford High School to provide value-based education and help Crawford students succeed in San Diego’s Community.

“There’s a schools to prison pipeline leading to higher drop-outs, [students] join gangs, become involved in crimes. CLIMB exists to set that clock back,” Professor Dyson said, “to unwind that phenomenon. They are tremendous role models to these kids.”

Crawford high school students are primarily low-to-middle income families, from all demographics, and unfortunately these circumstances ultimately lead to poor choices, poor programs and limited access to rehabilitative programs. CLIMB has worked to restore these issues by addressing them in a peer-centered Teen Court Program. “It gently restores the person back into the community,” he said. “We get these kids to think broadly about their potential and the tangible result is their grades improving.”

Professor Alex Simpson is the Program Director for Street Law, as well as the Legal Director for the California Innocence Project. He implemented the Street Law Program to give law students a chance to work in the San Diego community and teach high school students the importance of the law and our legal system.

“We try to give them a concept of rights and responsibilities under the law,” he said, “a place of community that they haven’t thought about before. A lot of these kids see the law as a negative force in their lives, we try to flip that.”

TJSL’s Street Law program will be taught in the spring 2013. “We go to high school classrooms and teach…the practical stuff,” Professor Simpson said.  The lessons include how to read rental agreements and how to avoid having a security deposit taken, the basics of employment discrimination, criminal law topics and constitutional law issues.

Although many law students come out of law school thinking Public Interest Law isn’t for them, Professor Simpson encouraged students to think again.

“It’s something that is very rewarding, and very fulfilling, but unfortunately not very lucrative,” he said. “Giving back to the community is incredibly important. It’s incredibly rewarding. It’s not the same experience with my [lawyer] friends. They’re frustrated, underappreciated and have no connection with their clients. I’m happy with what I’m doing. I wake up and want to go to work.” 

Lori Mendez who works as a personal injury attorney here in San Diego was appointed as the San Diego County Bar Association’s Community Service Committee Chair by the SDCBA President, and she hasn’t regretted any of her service to the San Diego Community.

She said her organization acts as an umbrella organization to so many other programs run by the SDCBA that allows attorneys, judges and law students to become more involved in San Diego. “We care about the community,” she said. “We really do. You feel like you’re making a big difference. It’s not just with one child, it’s more than that.”

Ms. Mendez discussed the various programs and organizations involved including, the Read-In Program, which allows legal professionals to go inside elementary schools and read to the children.

Although many of the programs are intended for students and the San Diego community, they have an impact on our legal field as well, like the Peer Mediation program. It implements positive conflict-resolution techniques with fourth and fifth graders. “This is something we use in the law,” she said. “We’re always resolving problems. We need to learn how to get along with our adversaries, our clients and positive techniques to do so.”

Overall the panel provided the TJSL students with some guidance about the importance of being active in the community through public service. “Pick something you’re passionate about,” Ms. Mendez said. “Just get involved, because there is so much need in our community.”

Immigration Law Society’s Fall 2102 “Careers in Immigration Law” Attorney Panel & Reception

Last Thursday the Immigration Law Society held their Fall 2012 main event – “Careers in Immigration Law" Attorney Panel & Reception. The event was a great success and it exceeded all of our expectations. Our goal for the event was to help students learn about the different career opportunities that exist within immigration law and help them get a better idea of what it's like to be an immigration attorney. To do this, we were able to assemble an amazing panel of six immigration attorneys and an immigration judge!

The panelists were fantastic. Each brought a unique perspective to the practice of immigration law and what it has to offer. We had two attorneys from the Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, two business immigration attorneys, one attorney who specializes in asylum cases in the non-profit sector, and one solo practitioner who does removal defense work. Of course, we were also fortunate to count with the presence of immigration Judge Zsa Zsa DePaolo who brought a wealth of experience and depth to our discussion.

After the panel, we went up to the school's beautiful 8th floor for a reception where the students and panelists were able to mingle over wine and hors d’oeuvres. It truly was a wonderful night. As president of the ILS, I am extremely proud of my executive board - VP Jimmy Nguyen, Treasurer Hector Leija and our Secretary Julie Houth. Without their hard work and dedication this event would not have been possible. Also, the support of our devoted members was amazing.

We encourage and invite everyone who is interested or curious about the career opportunities that exist in immigration law to contact us at ILSTJSL@gmail.com. We are a new and small but MIGHTY student org!

Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas at Austin. She was not admitted.  Fisher knew of minority students who were admitted into UT but had lower GPA’s, SAT I’s, and SAT II’s than Fisher.  Fisher sued UT for failure to give her a fair chance of admittance. Fisher’s counsel claimed UT’s admissions process used Fisher’s race against her, stating that“[Fisher was] denied equal treatment. It was a Constitutional injury.”  Requested damages would be the cost of Fisher’s application ($100) and would additionally include the difference between Fisher’s tuition at the school she attended instead, Louisiana State University, and UT’s tuition in terms of the tuition cost. Also included in damages sought were the future income and job opportunies that Fisher lost when she was not able to graduate from UT.  

However, Fisher was offered a summer admissions program; where she could matriculate into UT after passing UT’s summer semester standards.  Also, there were minority students that scored higher than Fisher that also were denied admission to UT.  In the Supreme Court Oral argument, UT asserted that Fisher would not have been admitted even if their holistic admissions process did not use race as a factor. 

Still, UT’s ability to use race as a factor when determining admittance could be unconstitutional if their admittance process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides, “[N]o person shall on the ground of race or color be excluded from participating in any program receiving federal financial assistance.”  These issues have been argued in the Supreme Court’s previous rulings on Grutter and Bakke.  The Supreme Court’s ruling on Fisher v. UT will in large part be structured by how UT violated the permitted use of race set forth in Bakke and Grutter.

Regents of the University of California (UC Davis Medical) v. Allan Bakke:

Justice Powell’s decision in Bakke stated that attaining a diverse student body is an interest that survives scrutiny: “[T]he nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation.”  However, Powell also emphasized the state interest in diversity is broader than racial and ethnic origins. Race and ethnic origins are only a single (though important) factor.  Thus, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to set quotas of students from a particular race that must be accepted, however the Supreme Court specifically condoned the use of race as a factor in determining future admissions decisions for the purpose of increasing student diversity.

Barbra Grutter v. Lee Bollinger et al. (University of Michigan Law):

In Grutter, the US Supreme Court ruled diversity as a compelling state interest justifying narrowly tailored racial preference in the student body selection—as long as race is used as part of holistic review that takes into account many other attributes.  In her decision, Justice O’Connor claimed that diversity in school enriches the educational experience for all the students and prepares American students for interactions in a heterogeneous world.

Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.

Texas’s legislature passed Texas House Bill 588, guaranteeing automatic admission to all state-funded universities for Texas students graduating in the top 10% of their class. Roughly 80% of UT’s freshmen enroll under the “ten-percent rule.”  Fisher’s counsel argued that the ten-percent plan meets a critical mass of diverse students and UT ignores any end where race would not be needed to attain a critical mass of diverse student.  Rein claims that UT gratuitously and unconstitutionally gives Black and Hispanic applicants preference at admissions.

UT asserts that accepting the top 10% of a class from a racially identifiable high school could look like diversity “on paper,” but it does not guarantee racial diversity that produces benefits on campus.  UT wants representatives and different viewpoints from individuals within the same racial group.  UT’s plan does not set aside spots for minorities but continues to use race as a factor to admit people from different perspectives.

Justice Scalia questions whether UT is even seeking racial diversity then, if it is merely different viewpoints that UT wants to foster.  But UT argued that they do take race into account as part of a holistic review; instead, they want diversity within race.  UT does not want only one particular background within a race and the top 10% plan does not foster diversity; UT needs their holistic review to ascertain diversity. 

ACLU Racial Justice Project Senior Staff Attorney Courtney Bowie and the Author of, “Mismatch” Stuart Taylor both think the Supreme Court will rule against UT: 5-3.  Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the decision and Justice Roberts is a possible swing vote, meaning that this could be  a 4-4 tie. If that is the case ,the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals decision in favor of UT would be upheld.

For more information and analysis on this case see:

(1)  http://www.c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-for-Saturday-October-13/10737434966/

(2)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR3bXVqhbMU&feature=relmfu

It’s Friday night, you are among good company and the night is only growing later.  Left without many options, you and your surrounding friends decide to take it easy and opt to grab a beer and just relax.  Well I have found the perfect spot if this sounds like the night you seek.  Located on the north side of Little Italy, situated on the right side of India Street, is a little brew house called Bottlecraft Beer Shop and Tasting Room.  A humble, small business in San Diego, Bottlecraft is a pet-friendly beer shop housing over 597 different options for your beverage of choice.  Open Monday through Sunday, 12pm to 10pm, Bottlecraft offers a wide selection of various brews, both domestic and international, for purchase-and-drink, purchase-and-takeaway, tastings, and kegs.  Additional items may be purchased during the tastings such as snacks, or you may choose to bring your own food to enjoy while at the shop.  If the experience moves you to become an in-house brewer, or a fashionista, the shop offers a beer making kit and other fashion items for purchase.

For a better visual, the ambiance of Bottlecraft is very unique in style.  From outside the shop, patrons are greeted with huge glass windows that welcome them into a well-lit showroom.  As you enter, to your left is an elevated metal counter that allows the consumer to view the street and take in the views of San Diego while seated.  As you move from the front left of the shop towards the back, next, one would come upon a wooden picnic table for tastings.  Typically 10-12 persons may seat and try up to four beers from the showroom floor.  The staff is very educated and well-versed to satisfy your palette.  The rest of the showroom is confined within red-brick walls covered in shelves that provide patrons with a presentation of each beer Bottlecraft offers.  If you do not decide on something on the wall, the floor of the shop is a maze of kiosks housing additional beers for your pleasure both in the store or for carryout.  If you are looking for a chilled beer, the front right of the store houses a variety of the same beers that one may purchase to consume in the shop, or for carryout.  For a better visual of the shop, one will have to visit this gem of San Diego themselves.

Bottlecraft offers flight tastings for people that are not sure they want to commit to just one beer. The beers on the various flights change every day. But, on this particular visit, I chose to try a bottle and sit with friends before we made our way to dinner. Deciding to stay in town, I tried Rayon Vert, a Belgian pale ale from Green Flash Brewing in San Diego. It pours a cloudy orange color with a lot of foam head. The taste is more spice and fruit than hops with some citrus. A very good beer for fall because it almost gives the same feeling as pumpkin spiced chai on an autumn day. Belgian pale ales are a medium bodied style beer, so lighter than a stout but heavier than a lager. Rayon Vert is really easy to drink.

Bottlecraft offers drinkers, and non-drinkers, a great atmosphere to relax and enjoy a nice cool beverage on a hot day, or a free night. All are welcome and we wish you bottles, or cans, up.  All you have to say is, “Beer Me!” Bottlecraft Beer Shop and Tasting Room 2161 India St. San Diego, CA (619) 487 - 9493