Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Edwards as the ABC Candidate

I’m delighted to report that the growing conventional wisdom has former Senator John Edwards as the “ABC” (Anyone But Clinton) candidate for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Edwards, along with Gen. Wesley Clark, is one of my two favorite likely Democratic presidential candidates. Senator Clinton has already raised about $20 million for her campaign, and has a surrounded herself with experienced campaign staff, making her seem like the candidate to beat for the nomination.

Edwards is a huge beneficiary of changes to the Democratic party’s primary schedule, which has front-loaded caucuses in states where he should do well. But as far as I know, he’s lagged badly in the money-raising department ever since former Va. governor Warner and Sen. Feingold starting gaining traction. Although I like a lot (but not all) of what Feingold says, I don’t think he has a chance of winning a national election. Warner has nice demographics — but has yet to demonstrate that he stands for anything much. Certainly the people attracted to his campaign so far are in it on the “he can win” theory, not because of any issue they can point to. If the guy has taken an interesting stand on a controversial national issue (as opposed to local Virginia issues), I sure haven’t heard about it, nor has anyone I know.

By contrast, Edwards is just impressive — someone running a campaign of optimism rather than either cautious triangulation or fear and demonization.

The way these races usually work, the media gravitates to a narrative in which there’s a front runner, an insurgent, and the “others”. Clinton gets to be front-runner for now because she probably has raised more money than everyone else put together. Given that Edwards was being squeezed a little by the profusion of other candidates, getting noticed now as the likely/possible ABC candidate is on balance a good thing, although there’s an awful lot of time before the election, which creates the risk of a “he peaked too early” narrative developing in six, twelve or even eighteen months.

Posted in Politics: US: 2008 Elections | 5 Comments

Birds of a Feather

It’s a long way from Mary Poppins. Calling them “rats with wings” London Mayor Ken Livingstone tried to get rid of the thousands of pigeons in Trafalgar square by prohibiting the Londoners and tourists from feeding them. This spawned a protest to Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons, and eventually a lawsuit giving long-time feeders the right to continue to feed the birds but prohibiting casual feeders. (While kind-hearted, this effort does provide further evidence for the critics who say that the British care more about animals than people. Exhibit “A” for this claim is that the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals is enjoys royal patronage, but there is no corresponding royal imprimatur for any group seeking to prevent cruelty to children.) [Update: see the comments for a contrary view.]

Cut to Las Vegas, where the city is declaring war on unsightly homeless people. It hasn’t called them rats with feet thumbs [edit because, after all, rats do have feet…], but that’s the general idea. Las Vegas has just passed an ordinance banning the feeding of poor people in the parks. Yes, in a Las Vegas park you can give a sandwich to a rich person, but not to the starving.

The ordinance, an amendment to an existing parks statute approved by the Council on July 19, bans the “the providing of food or meals to the indigent for free or for a nominal fee.” It goes on to say that “an indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive” public assistance.

That’s America today: banning charity.

A blanket feeding ban regardless of income level would I am sure be constitutional. I leave it to others to parse equal protect law and opine whether the distinction between rich and poor in this rule will survive equal protection review. I suspect that judges will not be inclined to uphold this rule if doctrine permits them to strike it down.

Meanwhile, click here:

Posted in Law: Everything Else | 4 Comments

Software Upgrades!

Firefox 1.5.0.5 (and while you are at it, get the new version of the scrapbook plug-in now with the ability to highlight and edit web pages before you save them!).

And, an update giving some long-needed entry into heretofore secret MS Office internals.

Posted in Sufficiently Advanced Technology | 1 Comment

What Skill Set for Tomorrow’s Lawyers?

In The social job market, Alex Halavais points to and discusses some thinking about the skill set that tomorrow’s engineers will need. If you presume an outsourced world, it’s different from what they are getting today — much more foreign language and culture, interpersonal skills, and (remote) management.

I wonder what the similar skill set should be for tomorrow’s lawyer.

  • The languages and sensitivity to globalization issues, foreign, comparative and international law, are almost conventional wisdom already, although execution lags.
  • ADR is a big part of the package.
  • Using technology is big, although understanding the technology is not, sadly, nearly so obviously necessary unless one’s specialization touches it directly.
  • I’ve blogged previously about the importance of basic statistics.
  • Many people believe that given the increased specialization of our profession, the law schools should start helping students specialize earlier. Two signs of this trend are certificates for JD’s and the profusion on (money making!) LL.M programs. Here, I’m agnostic. I think that there’s a fine case to be made that the push to specialization in practice actually increases the need for law schools to ensure that their graduates have a decent generalist grounding, for they may never have another chance at it. And both the realities of practice and of malpractice show that lawyers at least need to be able to identify (but not necessarily solve single-handedly) issues outside their specialties before it is too late.
Posted in Law School | 1 Comment

Bob Glushko Has a Blog

Bob Glushko is an original and deep thinker about structured information flows (think XML and its bigger relatives). And he’s smart. But he has a blog anyway. It’s called “Doc or Die” and shared with Tim McGrath.

Posted in Blogs | 1 Comment

Of Special Interest to UM Students

This news story about a recent legal decision will have a special resonance for many UM law students who, in their first-year “Elements” course, spend a good deal of time pondering the law relating to the ownership of engagement rings post pre-marital breakups.

Judge Rules Fiance Can Keep $40,000 Engagement Ring: A New York judge ruled that a woman who dumped her allegedly cheating fiance can keep her $40,000 engagement ring, reports the New York Post (link unavailable).

Jilted men are normally legally entitled to get their rings back because they’re considered conditional gifts. But Judge Rolando Acosta ruled that because Brian Callahan was still technically married to another woman when he proposed to the Dana Clyburn Parker, he couldn’t get back the 3.41-carat round ideal-cut diamond ring.

“When one of the parties is married, an agreement to marry is void as against public policy,” said the judge.

Posted in U.Miami | 1 Comment