Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Dubya, The Movie

Posted on November 17, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Dubya, the Movie is clever, and there’s no question it is exquisitely cast, but I found myself unable to laugh for some reason.

Update: On the other hand, this song did make me laugh pretty hard. I hope it gets a lot of airplay! (So do these guys.)

Posted in Completely Different | Comments Off on Dubya, The Movie

Something Cheerful?

Posted on November 17, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Memo to self: must not get hopeful again.

But, but, but, MyDD :: Democratic Independence Grows is actually plausible. And served cold too.

Posted in Politics: US: 2006 Election | Comments Off on Something Cheerful?

The Barbarians Manning the Gates

Posted on November 17, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Read Obsidian Wings, Requiem.

Really, please read this, especially the last two thirds or so. It’s horrible.

Innocent people — people the government itself says are innocent — chained to the floor. Kept out of contact with their families. Denied reading materials in their language. Denied contact with their families. Denied not just contact with counsel, but even when they have lawyers, the lawyers are not told about hearings concerning the client — not even that the clients have been exonerated. Maybe two years before the fact slinks into open court. And it gets aired only because the court is considering a habeas petition.

When trying to describe the behavior of this administration regarding detainees in Guantanamo and elsewhere, not even Kafka provides us with a vocabulary or a set of categories. Compared to the casual barbarity of this crew, Kafka seems a weak thing, a bloodless amateur.

But not to worry. Americans’ tender consciences will henceforth be sheltered from having to face the facts about what this country’s government is doing in our name. Thanks to the ‘compromise’ brokered in the Senate regarding the Graham Amendment the odds are that we need not worry about new habeas motions — arguably need not even worry about the continued survival of existing habeas motions — that might produce facts dissonant with our comfortable ideas of the rule of law, minimal due process, or the lower bounds below which US officials could not routinely sink. Show’s over folks. Go about your business.

Barbarians are people who break what they don’t understand. And the current administration does not understand due process, human rights, or even common minimum decency.

Must the Senate prostate prostrate itself before these barbarians? [unintentional humor there, I’m afraid…]

Posted in Guantanamo, Torture | 4 Comments

It Could Be More Effective than Suing

Posted on November 16, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

A student blogger (on a group blog partly run by a UM student), asks an interesting question:

If anyone out there who happens to be a member of “Outlaw” or knows someone who is, can you tell me why the chapters throughout the American law schools have not joined forces and all signed up for JAG slots when they come to school to interview?

What happened to throwing a wrench into the machine? Wouldn’t this effectively make their presence on campus useless? Every slot filled with people unable (not allowed) to join? The school would still get their funds. Sure, some people who really wanted to go to JAG would be screwed, but there are always collateral losses. Have movements become too nice?

I wonder what you have to sign in advance of one of those interviews. Also, is there any federal law that could even arguably be used to make the student regret the protest?

Continue reading →

Posted in Law School | 8 Comments

Amtrak as Object Lesson in How Not to Run a … Board Meeting

Posted on November 16, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

In a stunning coincidence, on the very day I am due to give a guest lecture on the subject of government corporations to my wife’s Business Associations class, the New York Times has published an article about corporate governance issues relating to Amtrak, a federally chartered for-profit (but always money-losing) corporation.

Days after Amtrak’s board of directors fired the railroad’s president, the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Amtrak said Tuesday that the board might have acted illegally because it lacked a quorum. …

Amtrak’s board chairman and the Transportation Department’s representatives on the board sat stoically through the hearing. Places were set for two other members of the board, but they did not appear.

The unpopular move by the directors has focused attention on their legal status. Mr. LaTourette, head of the railroad subcommittee of the House transportation panel, said the board had apparently not had a quorum in the last few years. He said that under the board’s bylaws, a quorum would be five of seven directors. The board has only four directors, and two of those will lose their seats when Congress recesses for the year in a few weeks.

The Transportation Department’s chief counsel, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who also serves on the Amtrak board as the representative of the transportation secretary, disputed Mr. LaTourette on that point and others. But others at the hearing, some seeking to reinstate Mr. Gunn, seized on the procedural questions surrounding the board.

“You’ve opened up a whole Pandora’s box,” said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s delegate to the House and a member of the transportation committee, addressing David M. Laney, the board chairman.

Ms. Norton described the board’s uncertain legal status as “a lawsuit waiting to happen.”

I claim to be one of the leading authorities on the delicious, if obscure, subject of federal government corporations, as I wrote one of my first articles about them, Reinventing the Government Corporation, 1995 Ill. L. Rev. 543. Please note that I am available for guest lectures, faculty seminars, children’s birthday parties and, of course, expensive consulting gigs.

Posted in Law: Federal Govt Corps | 2 Comments

Note to Self: Stuff to Read

Posted on November 16, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

From CultureCat | Rhetoric and Feminism:

3. What are some of the best female-written blogs in
your opinion? The best liberal blogger? The best conservative blogger?
The best in keeping everyone guessing?

Best female-written blogs:
One Good Thing: http://buggydoo.blogspot.com/
Girl Genius: http://girlgenius.typepad.com/girlgeniuscom/
Badgerings: http://badbadbadger.blogspot.com/

Best liberal bloggers:
Pharyngula: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog
Bitch Ph.D.: http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/
Body and Soul: http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/
Norbizness: http://norbizness.com/
Feministe: http://feministe.us/blog/

blackfeminism.org: http://blackfeminism.org/
Hullaballoo (Digby): http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
John & Belle: http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/

Also creative endeavors like:
The Rude Pundit: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Wealth Bondage: http://thehappytutor.com/ (“fetish action figures”)

Best conservative bloggers:
Ann Althouse: http://althouse.blogspot.com
Ilyka Damen (now defunct): http://ilyka.mu.nu
(and though they’re more libertarian/fiscal conservative)
Crescat Sententia: http://www.crescatsententia.org/
Marginal Revolution: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/

Posted in Blogs | 2 Comments