Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

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

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

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

Alito In 1985 v. Alito in 2005

The man nominated to replace the first female Justice in US history isn’t just not a woman — he’s a man who was a proud member of “Concerned Alumni of Princeton”, a group formed to oppose the admission of women to that male bastion. (“Q: How many Concerned Alumni of Princeton does it take to change a light bulb? A: Six – One to change it, and five to sit around and talk about how good the old one was.”)

Now, this was back in 1972, a rather long time ago, and at a rather young age. So one might be tempted to draw a veil over the episode. But not Samuel Alito. It seems that then-Mr. Alito was still bragging about his anti-woman-at-Princeton membership in 1985, when applying for legal work in Meese’s Justice Department. (And it probably was a shrewd move, too. In any case, he got the job.)

In that same 1985 application, Alito made a point of stating that “I personally believe very strongly” that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to abortion. Again, not alone likely to be a disqualification; many people believed that then, many do today, including some who would follow Casey‘s re-affirmation of Roe despite their personal beliefs.

What’s most troubling here is Alito’s explaining this ‘deep personal belief’ away when visiting when Senator Specter. He doesn’t say he’s changed in the intervening 20 years. He doesn’t say, personal beliefs don’t necessarily decide cases, personal beliefs then may not control legal decisions now — which would have left the issue open. (And he certainly doesn’t say he’s changed or grown in 20 years — that might startle the base.) Rather, today Judge Alito says that what he said 20 years ago should be ignored: “I personally believe very strongly” was just language used by “an advocate seeking a job.” What does that mean? He was lying? Puffing? Being parsimonious with the truth? But we should believe him now because he’s a judge seeking a much better job?

Continue reading

Posted in Law: The Supremes | 1 Comment

William Arkin on White Phosphorus in Fallujah: “It is a representation of a losing strategy”

William Arkin not only organizes what we know about the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, but he puts in context — which just makes it all the more depressing. This is a rich posting, and I urge you to go read more than the excerpt below. (More kudos to the Washington Post for giving Arkin a platform!)

“White Death” Is A Losing Strategy: … When used in artillery ammunition, “Willy Pete” as it is called, can produce white smoke and illumination, and is particularly useful for target marking. It has been a standard and inexpensive weapon in world arsenals for decades.

… The [Italian TV] documentary shows close-ups of Fallujah civilians, badly burnt, their skin dissolved or caramelized. An Iraqi biologist in Fallujah is interviewed, saying “a rain of fire fell on the city,” burning people’s flesh, but strangely leaving “their clothes intact.”

…White phosphorus, though used, the Pentagon said, is “simply another conventional munition” that is neither outlawed nor illegal.

Well not simply. …

I for one am reluctant to pronounce whether the use of white phosphorous for “shake and bake” missions in Fallujah and the evident blundering use of white phosphorous in areas known to be occupied by civilians is illegal. Neither am I buying the State Department’s line that the use of white phosphorous in this way — that is, to possibly inflict unnecessary suffering — is not “illegal” use. What I’m sure of is that the use of white phosphorous is not just some insensitive act. It is not just bad P.R. It is the ill thought out and panicked use of a weapon in an illegitimate way.

U.S. military forces have the most stringent legal rules, the most aggressive internal lawyer class, the most constraining rules of engagement with regard to the laws of war and civilian casualties — even under the shoot-em-first-ask-questions-later Bush administration. Those rules are scrupulously followed, as long as everything is going well and the chain of command is strong and in control.

When the chain of command breaks down and military formations turn into a mob, Abu Ghraib’s result. …

When soldiers and commanders are discouraged and following a losing strategy, “taking” Fallujah, let’s say, not for the first or second or even third time; when they are trying to use “psychology,” that is, demoralize the enemy, then it is not enough to just defeat them. That is where shake and bake comes in, the desire to do something in a different way, to “shock and awe” the opposition, to sow chaos. …

In Fallujah, the Army employed a terribly ill-conceived method for using white phosphorous, evidently interested only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun. Higher level commanders were either absent or oblivious to the larger issues. They did not impose order and encourage precision. They should be held accountable. They won’t.

It really is Vietnam all over again, isn’t it?

Posted in Iraq | Comments Off on William Arkin on White Phosphorus in Fallujah: “It is a representation of a losing strategy”

Life’s Little Mysteries

Why did someone from the Czech Lands call my cell phone three times in quick succession this morning while I was teaching, but leave no message? The number doesn’t work when I try to call it back…

Posted in Personal | 4 Comments

A Grim Compromise

Balkinization has a first take on what seems to be the language the Senate enacted today as a “compromise” on the Graham amendment.

It does not look at all good.

Posted in Guantanamo | 2 Comments