Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Making Law Schools Tell the Truth

Brian Tamanaha predicts, plausibly, that law schools will be subject to external scrutiny. It does sound as if they’ve earned it. I was not aware that the Law School Admissions Council has the ability to provide (or check) LSAT (and other?) data that has been being falsified by some schools. Getting the accurate data from the source seems like a no-brainer.

I would hope that a move to more verified reporting is an unalloyed good for UM, just as it most certainly would be for prospective law students everywhere. If, as seems to be the case, we’re reporting honestly, we can only gain from stamping out the trimmers.

Posted in Law School | Comments Off on Making Law Schools Tell the Truth

Oral Argument in Golan Case

The Supreme Court has posted the transcript of today’s (!) oral argument in Golan v. Holder, the case about the constitutionality of taking works out of the public domain and extending copyright protection to them.

It’s an unusually good argument on all three sides (2 advocates and the court), but I think that Anthony T. Falzone’s effort for the Petitioners was especially impressive.

Posted in Law: Copyright and DMCA, Law: The Supremes | 2 Comments

Another Reason I Hate My Bank

I have been having a problem with the web site for my bank, which after many years of working OK suddenly decided a few weeks ago that it really didn’t feel like downloading my transaction information into Quicken any more.

Yesterday I finally broke down and called the bank to see if they could sort it out. I hate calling the bank because every time I want something it takes over an hour and I have to speak to three or more people. Indeed, I spent five minutes with the first tech, then got escalated to Trish, a nice tech from Level 2 tech support. Eventually I was able to convince her that it actually wasn’t working. But her attempt to actually solve anything was frustrated by the fact that the bank, having just rolled out a redesigned of their entire web site yesterday, wasn’t actually serving many downloads because something had crashed.

So we made an appointment to talk on Thursday. Seemed like a positive experience on balance. But not so fast! Today I get a call from a different tech, informing me that Level 2 is not making appointments to talk to people, so the first tech would not be calling on Thursday. Yes, he called me when I wasn’t free to talk to say they wouldn’t be calling me when I was free to talk. And, oh yes, systems are still down, so no point doing anything today either.

On the positive side, the more-than-one-hour-and-three-or-more-people rule seems intact.

Posted in Shopping, Software | 2 Comments

Amygdala is Back! (Impairment of Contracts)

His fans will be glad to know that Gary Farber seems to have overcome the problems in his life long enough to take up blogging again, and has a stemwinder of a post in Papers, Please on the new Alabama anti-undocumented-immigrant statute.

I had not being paying enough attention, because until he pointed it out, I had not known that among the many jaw-dropping features of this piece of punitive xenophobia is this bit, hidden in plain sight in the New York Times:

Among the other sections Judge Blackburn upheld: one that nullifies any contracts entered into by an illegal immigrant; another that forbids any transaction between an illegal immigrant and any division of the state, a proscription that has already led to the denial of a Montgomery man’s application for water and sewage service; and, most controversially, a section that requires elementary and secondary schools to determine the immigration status of incoming students.

Nullification of contracts? Er, what about this little section of the Constitution, in Art. I, Sec. 10, para 1:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

(emphasis added). Surely that’s relevant?

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 11 Comments

Title To Come

Apparently, the author of How to Procrastinate and Still Get Things Done just won an Ig Nobel prize for it — 15 years late.

The article is quite worrying, for, as I have mentioned before, it more-or-less describes much of how I work.

Also relevant: Annals of Procrastination (01/09), Procrastination Prediction Vindicated (02/11).

Incidentally, as regards the 02/11 entry, I did in the end get the book, but I had to return it before I got around to reading it.

The use of hobby blogs as a procrastination tool is left as an exercise for the reader.

Posted in Completely Different | Comments Off on Title To Come

Where Have You Gone, FDR?

Fred Clark points to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Sept. 30, 1934, Fireside Chat:

To those who say that our expenditures for Public Works and other means for recovery are a waste that we cannot afford, I answer that no country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources. Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance. Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order. Some people try to tell me that we must make up our minds that for the future we shall permanently have millions of unemployed just as other countries have had them for over a decade. What may be necessary for those countries is not my responsibility to determine. But as for this country, I stand or fall by my refusal to accept as a necessary condition of our future a permanent army of unemployed. On the contrary, we must make it a national principle that we will not tolerate a large army of unemployed and that we will arrange our national economy to end our present unemployment as soon as we can and then to take wise measures against its return. I do not want to think that it is the destiny of any American to remain permanently on relief rolls.

Is it unfair to expect President Obama to be FDR? On the one hand, obviously there’s an element of unfairness in holding him to the standard of one of the best (despite his flaws) Presidents in history. On the other hand, even in politics repeating a success should be easier than inventing it. Heck, the GOP finds repeating Hoover’s failures to be trivially easy.

More generally, is there not something odd and maybe interesting in that the Republican party finds it profitable to wrap itself in the mantle of Reagan while pushing policies opposite to those Reagan actually approved, yet the Democratic party cannot bring itself to call it Hooverism, nor to wrap itself in FDR’s mantle? Are these figures now erased from the popular consciousness? Given the state of our educational system, I suppose anything is possible.

Posted in Econ & Money, Politics: US | 3 Comments