9

Airport Screening Stories

Cartoon-SecFlt.jpg

Once upon a time, in an airport far far away, some people had problems with passenger screening. Nice people found themselves on lists of naughty people. Some called or emailed their complaint to the TSA Contact Center, in the hopes of fixing their problems or getting off the naughty lists (the Selectee or No Fly lists). The Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained the logs of their complaints, which contain many interesting tales.

From the call logs:

Consumer called and stated that

she was on a no fly list.  She would like to know what she would have to do or

who do [sic] she have to talk to to get off the list.  She stated that she was

informed at the airport that she was on a list.  I informed Mrs.

******* that since she’s allowed on the

plane after secondary screening, she isn’t on the No Fly List.  Mrs.

******* spoke to local detectives

stationed at FLL.  They informed her that she may be on the No Fly List.  But

the case is out of their jurisdiction.  She was referred to Homeland Security. 

Info has been forwarded to the appropriate source.  No accurate timeframe for

response.

* * * * * * *

Dr. ******* complains that every time he tries to fly commercial airlines, especiall United and Continental, he is “submitted to the most embarrassing and humiliating security checks at the counter even before they take my luggage.  It takes up to 25 minutes standing up.”

From the email logs:

I would like to know why my name is on the No Fly List and how I can get it removed. When I fly Continental for business, I have to have an airline representative check my identification and a TSA representative clear the reservation so my ticket can be issued for me to fly. This seems to only happen at Continental Airlines, but frequently I have had to go through the additional search at other airlines. The Continental agent did tell me that my name was on the No-Fly List and that it would be next to impossible to get if off, but I shall try anyway. I have not had any run-ins with the law or nor the airline, so I do not understand the reason for being on this list and subject to additional security when I fly for business or personal reasons. . . .

* * * * * * *

Read More

0

Mormons Pick Nominees, Part II

I’m starting to see a strange pattern here. First it was Ginsburg. LDS Senator Orrin Hatch has publicly taken credit for Clinton’s decision to nominate both Ginsburg and Breyer, writing of a discussion with the former president:

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

And with Orrin Hatch’s advice and consent, first Ginsburg and then Breyer were confirmed. (There are conflicting views as to what this means).

Now, LDS Senator Harry Reid claims to be the inspiration behind the Miers nomination:

At the meeting we had with the president last week, we were in the office he has there; I was there, Frist was there, Leahy was there, and Specter was there, plus Andy Card and the vice president. I said, “The vice president got here in a very unusual way. He was chosen by you to find a candidate to be your vice president. You liked the person in charge of finding a candidate better than the people he chose.” I said, “I think that rather than rather than looking at the people your lawyer’s recommending, pick her.”

As a church member myself, I’m pleasantly surprised by the trend. Three of the last four nominees were initially suggested by co-religionists? Not bad, not bad at all. Perhaps we’re not electable as presidents, but it looks like we’re doing alright being the power behind the throne.

I would post on this issue further, but I’ve got to run and go refine my short list. Just in case the President calls to ask me about nominees.

(Cross posted at Times and Seasons).

4

The USA-PATRIOT Act: A Fraction of the Problem

usa-patriot1.jpgOver at Legal Affairs Debate Club, Geoffrey Stone and Judge Richard Posner are debating the USA-PATRIOT Act. The focus of the debate thus far is on Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which states:

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Further, this section requires that the person ordered to turn over the materials shall not “disclose to any other person . . . that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.”

Stone calls for curtailing Section 215 and Posner comes out in favor of a modified version of it.

The problem with this debate, as with many debates over the USA-PATRIOT Act, is that it is focused only on the USA-PATRIOT Act. Many of the issues that people are debating about already existed in federal electronic surveillance law before the USA-PATRIOT Act.

Read More

2

Why Blogging Is Good

Blog1.jpgRecently, there have been many thoughtful discussions about whether blogging is a good activity for academics to be engaging in. I sure hope it is! Jack Balkin at Balkinization has a terrific post about blogging. He writes: “It has become increasingly obvious to me (and to many others as well) that some academic writing works perfectly well as a blog posting.”

A recent essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education by Henry Farrell (political science, GW), a blogger at Crooked Timber, offers some fantastic observations. Here are a few nibbles (actually, more like a few bites, because it’s such a good essay):

Properly considered, the blogosphere represents the closest equivalent to the Republic of Letters that we have today. Academic blogs, like their 18th-century equivalent, are rife with feuds, displays of spleen, crotchets, fads, and nonsenses. As in the blogosphere more generally, there is a lot of dross. However, academic blogs also provide a carnival of ideas, a lively and exciting interchange of argument and debate that makes many scholarly conversations seem drab and desiccated in comparison. Over the next 10 years, blogs and bloglike forms of exchange are likely to transform how we think of ourselves as scholars. While blogging won’t replace academic publishing, it builds a space for serious conversation around and between the more considered articles and monographs that we write.

What advantages does blogging offer over the more traditional forms of academic communication? Blogging sacrifices some depth of thought — it’s difficult to state a complex thesis in the average blogpost — but provides in return a freedom and flexibility that normal academic publishing can’t match. Consider the length of time it takes to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal. In many disciplines, a period of years between first draft and final publication is normal. More years may elapse before other academics begin to publish articles or books responding to the initial article. In contrast, a blog post is published immediately after the blogger hits the “publish” button. Responses can be expected in hours, both from those who comment on the blog (if the blog allows them) and from other bloggers, who may take up an idea and respond to it, extend it, or criticize it. Others may respond to those bloggers in turn, leading to a snowballing conversation distributed across many blogs. In the conventional time frame of academe, such a conversation would take place over several years, if at all. . . .

The essay wonderfully captures the positive influences blogging is having on the academy. More from Farrell’s essay:

Read More

4

The Pathology of Picking Supreme Court Justices

sct1.jpgThe Supreme Court appointment process has become almost pathological . . . ironically, for rational reasons. The incentive is for presidents to select people who are: (1) young, so they have a reign on the Court that rivals Fidel Castro’s in length; and (2) obscure, so they have rarely taken any positions on any major issues. [Sadly, the future prospects for Supreme Court appointments for bloggers are not looking good.]

The nomination of Harriet Miers has left many people guessing. We know very little about her. Mark Graber writes on Balkinization: “What both John Roberts and Harriet Miers have in common is that the administration knows a lot more about them than the rest of us.” Jack Balkin calls her a “stealth candidate.” Orin Kerr is “quite puzzled.”

We should be selecting Supreme Court justices from the most accomplished and distinguished of legal figures. Instead, being a judge for a long time almost disqualifies a person for the Supreme Court.

The Senate confirmation hearings have turned into vapid ritual, where Senators posture and bluster, and the appointee does a well-rehearsed dance to reveal as little as possible. No appointee is going to go before the Senate and say: “Well, yes, Senators, I intend to legislate from the bench. I’ll be activist. I won’t follow the Constitution. Instead, I’ll decide cases based on what I’ve had for breakfast that day. I’ll be biased and I’ll try to twist the law to conform to my personal whims.”

I hope that in the debates that follow about Harriet Miers, the focus will also include the systematic problems with the appointments process more generally.

Read More

1

Psst! Can I copy from your exam?

Or rather, can Ben Barros copy from your exam? He writes:

Perhaps I could set up a list of e-mail addresses of property professors willing to share exams, and we could get in touch with each other directly. Please leave a note in the comments if you (a) would be interested in participating and (b) have any ideas on how to set things up.

I haven’t yet given any exams in property — it’s on the list of courses I will probably teach someday, but not this semester. If you have given such exams, and would like to participate in Ben’s project, let him know.

But don’t let the proctor catch you copying from each other’s exams.

0

Facilitating removal of racist covenants

shelley.jpg An interesting new bill, Assembly Bill No. 394, appears well on its way to becoming law in California. AB 394 is designed to make it easier for property owners to remove racial restrictions and other illegal restrictive covenants from the titles to their property and to other property and other property within their subdivision.

Racial restrictions were declared illegal half a century ago, in Shelley vs. Kraemer. It’s not as if anyone is enforcing them today. But they remain in the titles to many pieces of property, and they serve as a painful reminder of the past. Under current law, property owners can petition to have them removed, but the process is cumbersome and time-consuming, and it affects only single parcels.

AB 394 would provide a streamlined method for removing these covenants from entire subdivisions. Seems like a reasonable idea to me.

11

Registration

A few years as a securities litigator has taught me that you can’t go public without a registration statement.(1) So, without further ado, here is a registration statement for Concurring Opinions.(2)

Read More