Author: ssw15

So, the whole big news of the day: Harriet Miers, Supreme Court nominee, withdrew. On the one hand, we could see it coming. She didn’t look like quality; she may be a good lawyer, but she wasn’t the epitome of a nominee. The Right Wingers had to be reassured by the White House’s tack of “She’s a conservative,” but evidentally, not quite (which scared the hell out of the Right Wingers). The Democrats could only stand back, and it means what? No one defended Miers on a substantive sense. And, now she’s out. It felt bad, because this means what, exactly – that we’re going to face a true conservative nominee to placate the Right Wingers? It’s making me nervous, I daresay. I have yet to read the analyses on-line or the newspapers, but it looks like we’re back to the drawing board in terms of watching the White House pick who again. The bright side in this is that at least Sandra Day O’Connor is still in the Court.

The White House is supposed to be busy anyway.

The latest “Doonesbury” continues to be amusing (or sad, if you want to think of it in another way), as J.J. continues to demonstrate how very much out of her teenager’s life she really is. J.J. wants to contribute to helping Alex decide on what college to apply, but didn’t even realize that her daughter is a geek. Alex has been a pioneer in the Internet, with patents and plans to go to a tech-inclined school, which Mike, the dad who supported this in the first place by having gone on-line all those years ago, is fully aware. J.J. didn’t even realize when Alex already took the SAT’s? Geez, J.J. is turning out so much worse than her own mom (Joanie got her act together and got her life in neater terms, with her career as a D.C. lawyer; J.J. probably had no sense to pull herself together).

And, Doonesbury had to pull its storyline for next week, in light of the lack of Harriet Miers hearings. Aww…

The passing of Civil Rights icon, Rosa Parks.

The passing of the NY Giants owner/football industry icon, Wellington Mara. Check out the Associated Press coverage – at least Mara got to enjoy the winning game on Sunday.

The latest Doonesbury storyline: Mike Doonesbury is taking his daughter, Alex, on the college tours. MIT, Cornell, Rensselaer, and… Walden? J.J., Alex’s mom, points out that this isn’t the ideal college. Alex figures it’s her safety school, and she’s a legacy (since Mike is an alumnus and so was, I believe, J.J.’s mom). Understandably, Mike gets outraged with his ex wife’s underwhelming reaction to Alex’s intention to apply to Walden. J.J. points out that even he took Walden off his resume. Mike weakly rebuts with “Well, it was years ago…” Walden, hardly the best college in North America. (ironically, it was originally Yale, since Garry Trudeau was using his alma mater as the home of his characters back when his characters were in a college newspaper).

I watched a bit of “Prison Break” on Monday night – goodness, is the actor Wentworth Miller (as the Prison Break mastermind Michael) a cutie or what? (umm, never mind – but I get all happy when he’s on the screen 😉 ah, well…). Michael’s teenage nephew, L.J., is heading into more serious trouble, as the Evil Secret Service guy is after him (and had killed off L.J.’s mom and stepdad; geez, Michael, do you realize how much deep shit your family’s in because your brother/L.J.’s dad is on Death Row?). Crazy and hard to stomach tv.

Interesting article – the White House doesn’t want another Souter. Personally, I just don’t think Justice Souter is such a bad guy and I liked how this article indicated that there were clues that Souter’s jurisprudence wasn’t based on conservatism, but that George Bush’s folks didn’t seem to see it:

President George H.W. Bush never knew Souter; he relied on his chief of staff, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, to vouch for his fellow New Hampshirite’s conservative credentials. Sununu’s perception of Souter, whose constitutional paper trail was skimpy and who was viewed as the ultimate stealth candidate, was apparently blurry as well. [….]

It is an article of faith among doctrinaire conservatives that the Souter nomination was a bait-and-switch operation by the first Bush administration. But was it? There are many who watched Souter’s 1990 confirmation hearings, including his mentor and champion for the Court, former New Hampshire Republican Sen. Warren Rudman, who say his Supreme Court record is entirely in keeping with his Senate confirmation hearings.

“I’ve never figured that one out,” says Rudman, now a partner in the D.C. office of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. “Anyone who ever listened to his testimony would know that he was a judge in the model of [John Marshall] Harlan or [Felix] Frankfurter. He certainly wasn’t in the mold of a real conservative.”

That’s not how John Sununu sees it. “Souter is absolutely different from what Souter and Souter supporters represented he was, not only during the vetting process but during his whole career,” says Sununu, in a telephone interview from Salem, N.H., where he is an engineering consultant.

“There is no question in my mind that [then-White House Counsel] C. Boyden Gray and [then-White House Associate Counsel] Lee Otis, both of them die-hard conservatives, vetted Souter’s credentials,” Sununu says. “All the questions were asked of Souter relative to the interpretation of the Constitution. They probed around specific issues as much as was perceived to be good custom. And every answer was indicative of what the president wanted. Everybody is disappointed, and with all due respect to those who were not, they were part of the deception.”

Gray, who has recently been nominated as U.S. ambassador to the European Union, declined to comment. Otis could not be reached.

That Souter was not the man Sununu had portrayed to conservatives was most vividly illustrated just two years after he was confirmed, when Souter co-authored, along with Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, one of three plurality opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That case, which conservatives had dearly hoped would overturn Roe v. Wade, instead reaffirmed it while imposing a new, “undue burden” standard to determine an abortion law’s legality.

Says Tinsley Yarbrough, a Souter biographer and political science professor at East Carolina University: “Souter was the key person writing that part of the opinion emphasizing the need to stand by precedent, especially when there’s public opposition.”

But that was only the beginning. Souter, says Edward Whelan, head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington and a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, “has been wrong virtually every time in closely contested cases of constitutional law.”

Still, if Souter’s White House vetting was problematic, his confirmation hearings were revealing. Mark Gitenstein, former chief counsel to then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., says he remembers Biden quizzing Souter about how he would determine fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment. “The answer is, we cannot, as a matter of definition at the beginning of our inquiry, narrow the acceptable evidence to the most narrow evidence possible,” Souter said.

That broad standard, and Souter’s expansive statements about unenumerated rights, reassured the Delaware Democrat. Says Gitenstein, “I remember talking to Biden and Biden said, ‘I have to vote for him as a result of that answer.’”

Souter cleared the Judiciary Committee on Sept. 27, 1990, with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., the only dissenting vote. He was confirmed by the full Senate 90-9.

Another former Senate Judiciary Committee staffer, a Republican whose current job doesn’t allow him to talk on the record, also has a vivid recollection of the hearings, especially when Souter was asked to list the high court’s most important cases. “He specifically highlighted Baker v. Carr,” says the former Judiciary staffer, referring to a 1962 case that ruled that legislative redistricting cases could be heard by the courts under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

“And I remember telling my Democratic colleagues, ‘I don’t know what you’re so worried about. I don’t think Souter’s going to be Bill Brennan.’” Souter’s citing of that case, says the former staffer, “told me that this is not a guy who is at intellectual war with the left. Of course, I had no idea he’d turn out as liberal as he did, but he was definitely not a [Robert] Bork or a Scalia.”

It wasn’t just at the hearings that Souter made clear his centrist thinking. His 200 or so opinions, written during a 12-year stint on the Superior Court of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and during his months as a judge on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also made that evident.

“Conservatives have been saying, ‘No more Souters, no more Souters,’” notes University of Chicago law professor David Strauss, who was a special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee during Souter’s confirmation hearings.

“But I read all of Souter’s lower court decisions, and I predicted at the time of the hearings, in an internal memo, that Souter wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe,” says Strauss, who was then working for Biden. “If you read his opinions and ask yourself, how does this guy approach judging? Souter doesn’t just say he’ll go by precedent — precedent orients his legal universe.”

Strauss’ view is not shared by everyone, however. According to one former high-ranking official from the first Bush administration active in judicial vetting, the problem with Souter’s judicial opinions was that they were not the types of cases that test broad constitutional principles. “They were pretty garden-variety type of issues,” he notes. [….]

Sorry that Sununu felt that he was “deceived.” But, I don’t think Souter really intentionally presented himself other than what he was – a personally conservative sort (by nature) who wasn’t going to be closed-minded (another sort of conservative, and certainly not attractive) or ideological or “political” when he’s supposed to be, well, judicial. If you’re looking for a Right Wing Conservative, well, that just isn’t acceptable to me (and jeez, if Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) likes you and voted for you, what does that tell you about you?). And, say that it was a bait-and-switch – well, I just never bought the idea that George H.W. Bush was that convincing a Right Winger, despite any overtures to them. I just don’t think he hates Souter as much as the Right Wingers do, and maybe he didn’t really want to pick a Right Winger for the Supreme Court (I mean, isn’t that what Thomas is there for?), or maybe the Right Wingers are overdoing with the hating. Or the reality is, you just never know what you’re going to get until a few years pass and then you’ll see what your justice is…

Seeing old reruns of “Calvin and Hobbes” in the comics has been nice, even if it’s just done to publicize the new Calvin and Hobbes book. So, where is Bill Waterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes? Well, apparently, now that he doesn’t need the money, he’s enjoying his art as he intended, and is reclusive (or just enjoying life outside the public eye; human behavior is in the eye of the beholder). Hey, I guess as long as he and his family are happy, who are we to complain? I guess.

This article in last week’s Time magazine is soo cool! Our solar system is so strange – so, maybe Pluto isn’t really a planet (but more like the lead planetoid of the Kuiper belt) and maybe there are more planets beyond Pluto (including, but not limited to, “Xena,” Sedna, and others) – or, at least as William Grimes put it, in his review of a book on the solar system, Dava Sobel’s “The Planets”:

What about Pluto, that little scamp at the far end of the solar system? It’s a problem. It achieved planetary status when astronomers sensed a certain something pulling at Uranus and Neptune. Originally, it was assumed that Planet X was 10 times Earth’s mass. Since being discovered in 1930, Pluto has had its size downgraded drastically, to the specklike dimensions it has today, about 1,500 miles in diameter and a mass only two-thousandths of Earth’s. Then, in 1989, Voyager 2 erased Pluto’s reason for being. It found that Neptune and Uranus actually balanced each other’s orbital anomalies, and there was no need to posit a ninth planet.

Ms. Sobel comes up with a happy ending. In the 1990’s, astronomers discovered all sorts of Pluto-like bodies in the Kuiper Belt, a doughnut-shaped zone that extends outward from Neptune to a distance 50 times greater than the distance from the Earth to the Sun. So things are looking up for Pluto, which may have its best days ahead of it, not the last planet, perhaps, but as “the first citizen of a distant teeming shore.”

Late Saturday night, I was in the mood not to go to sleep just yet, and the next thing I knew, I was watching “Airplane II.” Those Airplane movies were funny stuff – Robert Hayes as Ted Styker, the hapless pilot; Julie Haggerty as Elaine, his love interest; and the guest stars galore; and a plotline that actually makes sense (as crazy as it is). Airplane II has Peter Graves (Capt. Ouver, meet your subordinates, Under and Dunn…); William Shatner; Sonny Bono (before he became Congressman and long after his Cher days); David Leisure (the ex-Joe Isuzu); Lloyd Bridges; Rip Torn; and countless others. Even a Star Trek reference (well, you can’t escape that when you have Shatner).

Since the ChiSox are awaiting who they’re vying against in the World Series, Monday night, we have St. Louis beating Houston, in a sudden 9th inning move. “We have a problem, Houston…”

Fall reading:

“The First Emancipator : The Forgotten Story of Robert Carter, the Founding Father Who Freed His Slaves,” by Andrew Levy – book on a Virginian who freed his slaves (before he died), in the era of early post-Independence America. Fascinating read.

“The Brethren” – by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. In the midst of the Supreme Court nominations, I dug out my old copy of the classic (back from my college days) and read it, finishing on Sunday night. The look at the end of the Earl Warren Court and the transition of the Warren Burger Court. The look at Burger is … well, strange. The portrayal of all the justices – all ultimately human. Highly recommended.

Sing with me, folks; sing to the tune of that little “Annie” ditty: Will the sun come out, tomorrow? … Meteorologist Nick Gregory on Channel 5 news reports that we got a season’s worth of rain within a week. Yowza.

So, we don’t know very much about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. But, she does seem like a witty tough cookie, according to the documents and transcripts or whatnot, as the NY Times’ Ralph Blumenthal and Simon Romero report:

[….] The documents, released on Monday at the archives and covering 1995 to 2000, did not touch on her views on sensitive social issues. They also were not related to Mr. Bush’s campaigns for governor and president. Those files are held with his father’s papers at Texas A&M and are not public.

Before the release, the papers were reviewed by the office of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, which made no objections. The lottery commission blocked the release of two confidential memorandums with appeals to the state attorney general’s office.

The search produced more than 2,000 pages from the 2,000 cubic feet of documents from Mr. Bush’s files as governor and more than 20 square feet of records from the commission. Some papers from Ms. Miers’s time at the commission , a position to which she was named by Mr. Bush, depicted her as a bureaucrat with a keen eye for procedure. They also showed she sailed through her confirmation hearing. Minutes of commission meetings showed Ms. Miers in command, questioning employees and other commissioners on topics like advertising, charitable bingo operations and bids to help manage the lotteries. One lawmaker asked what groups could run bingo, saying, “Could the Ku Klux Klan?”

Ms. Miers responded, “Well, I would certainly hope not.”

Ah, good one, Ms. Miers. 😉 At least we know you’re not for the KKK having anything to do with the ole Texas Lottery Commission.

And, as an attorney in private practice, NY Times’ Jonathan D. Glater reports that she was your usual corporate law firm partner, with corporate litigation work, and while her colleagues and opposition thought well of her, even the things they say about her don’t seem that greatly impressive:

[….] In 1998, Ms. Miers was hired by SunGard, a technology company based in Wayne, Pa. According to court documents, Southwest Securities sued after SunGard began negotiating a business opportunity with two employees of a company that Southwest later merged with. Southwest contended that the talks violated the terms of an agreement between the predecessor company and SunGard. The case was eventually settled.

“It was a pretty standard case, in terms of just run-of-the-mill commercial litigation,” said Joe B. Harrison, a lawyer at Gardere Wynne in Dallas, which represented Southwest Securities. “There wasn’t anything unique about the facts or the law that I recall.”

He added that Ms. Miers was “well prepared, very courteous.”

Lewis T. LeClair, a partner at McKool Smith who faced Ms. Miers in another contract case, said she was a “different kind of lawyer.” “You can think of the Mark Laniers, the Rusty Hardins,” he said, referring to some of the more flamboyant courtroom advocates in Texas. “Harriet’s not cut from that mold.” [….]

Margaret Donahue Hall, a partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, also offered plaudits for Ms. Miers. “She is really a unique person, and she does not go about things the way someone who rises typically does,” Ms. Hall said. “In my heart of hearts, I know she’d make a great Supreme Court justice, but it’s hard to put into words why.”

And that is the biggest challenge for Ms. Miers’s supporters, who can point to competence, toughness and niceness but offer few signs that she has wrestled with the sensitive topics that the public seems to care about most.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who was confirmed by the Senate last month, produced a rather spare paper trail that nonetheless looks exhaustive when compared with the one left by Ms. Miers. Senators grilled him about his thoughts on capital punishment, affirmative action and the right to die.

In all Ms. Miers’s cases on soured contracts and other corporate matters, there are scarcely even hints of what her thoughts on such issues might be.

Wow. Could you be a little more withering? Heck, you can’t even figure out how Ms. Miers was as a law review person: her one note, written back when she was a 2L in 1968, suggests she had legal thought, but nothing terribly inspiring or very indicative of how she is as a 60 year old lawyer. But, seriously, all I would want to say is that you don’t have to be an Ivy Leaguer, or a law review person, or a judge to become a Supreme Court justice. You should at least be significant or inspiring. Be someone who others (your legal colleagues, for example) may be able to clearly articulate why you deserve to be on the Highest Court.

And, in other news, Chewbacca is now an American. Well, at least the British-born actor who played Chewbacca of “Star Wars” got naturalized.

“I got married to a Texan lady. That more or less decided it,” said [Peter] Mayhew, who has been married to his wife, Angelique, for six years. [….]

When he takes his oath to become an American, Mayhew said he’ll recite what he can remember and “it will be a Chewie growl for the other parts.”

Wonder if R2D2 or 3PO (who I believe are also played by British actors) may end up becoming Americans next.

Oh, and a little more Smurfs – Anderson Cooper had a funny bit on the whole UNICEF Smurf commercial in Belgium:

Still to come, though, on 360, what’s blue and white and sort of shaped like a gumdrop with arms and legs? A smurf, of course. But why would someone bomb the smurfs? We’ll explain ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: First of all, we should tell you that although what follows is about some beloved children’s characters, notably smurfs, it really isn’t suitable for children. Unless you have the kind of children who like to see their beloved characters barbecued, in which case you have bigger problems than keeping them away from the TV set. So seriously, not for kids right now.

See, UNICEF has decided to bomb the smurfs in a new TV commercial. It’s for a good cause, but seeing smurfs oblito- smurferated (sic) is — well, it’s kind of shocking. See for yourselves.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You think all smurfs look the same.

COOPER (voice-over): Who doesn’t love the smurfs? Besides parents forced to watch them, that is. They’re bouncy, blue, three apples high bundles of smug happiness, baffling the plots of the evil sorcerer Gargamel and his mangy cat Azrael.

Generations have grown up entranced by the coquettish Smurfette and the gruff but lovable Papa Smurf.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep on smurfing!

COOPER: Who at the age of 542 looks pretty darn good.

But in a new commercial now running on TV in Belgium, all is not so smurfy in the mushroom-filled town of Smurfville. One moment, the smurfs are dancing around a campfire. The next, it’s Smurfageddon. Their cute mushroom homes are blown up, and so are a number of smurfs. The commercial ends with a child smurf left crying amidst the wreckage.

Who would do this to smurfs? Turns out the bloodbath is the brainchild of UNICEF Belgium. Belgium is the birthplace of smurfs, after all. And they are blowing them apart to raise awareness and money to rehabilitate children, kidnapped and forced to fight as soldiers in the African country of Burundi.

Will seeing their little blue friends blown up send thousands of Belgian kids into shock? Perhaps, but UNICEF says the ad is meant for adults, and will be aired only at night.

For their part, the smurfs aren’t talking, but we are sure with their can-do smurf spirit, they will be up and smurfing in no time soon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Oh, smurfs. Papa Smurf.

We did make a number of calls to UNICEF headquarters to give the organization the chance to comment on the story. None of our calls was returned. We’re also still waiting to hear directly from the official spokessmurf. That would be smurfirific (sic).

Tee-hee. Guess Anderson’s feeling a whole lot better after getting back to town from Katrina.

And, last but not least, last week’s Time magazine covers how former Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti has found a fulfilling 2nd career: as a photographer. The pictures aren’t on the website, but they looked fascinating when I saw them in the magazine. It’s great to hear a lawyer do more than grab publicity (which weren’t pretty when Garcetti had the Menendez brothers and OJ Simpson cases) – but finding art in life.

Weeks of no rain leads to this: a whole week of rain. But, at least some people have perspective – the flooded folks out in NJ told some tv news reporters that, on the bright side, it’s not like it’s Katrina. People can deal. And, we can avoid a drought. But, the wet and gray can get tiresome.

Imagine the Smurf village getting bombed and poor Baby Smurf all orphaned and injured. I just don’t have that kind of sick imagination, but apparently someone in Belgium and/or UNICEF does. Yeesh.

Laura Bush apparently felt that some of the criticism of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers could be due to sexism. When I heard that, I wasn’t overly impressed. I mean, honestly, Miers is nominated to replace the 1st woman justice; criticism may be attributed to elitism, snobism, or plain old justifiable criticism – but sexism? I almost want to say, maybe. Well. Slate’s John Dickerson says, “Get serious”:

Yesterday, the first lady tried to improve Harriet Miers’ confirmation chances by charging that some of the nominee’s critics were guilty of sexism. The powerful accusation may count in some quarters as an answer to legitimate criticism, just as it sometimes did when it was leveled at Hillary Clinton’s antagonists. But crying discrimination isn’t going to help Harriet Miers, both because there isn’t much truth to it, and because to the extent it’s a factor, it’s coming from the guy who appointed her.

The White House should have stuck with claiming that Miers’ foes were snobs and elitists. At least that had the advantage of being true: Many of the most outspoken opponents of the nomination are intellectuals, who are elitists almost by definition. The Bush side could make other plausible complaints about Miers’ critics: that some in the Senate are opportunistically looking for ways to draw attention to themselves, and that those on the religious right are being impertinent and fussy, demanding a second dessert after being served the treat of John Roberts. But sexist? It seems like the last desperate act of a team whose nominee is in trouble.

[….] The White House limited the field of potential choices to women. In ordinary English, that is called a quota. This admission of truth, which Bush’s father never made about Clarence Thomas, makes it hard for the president to rebut criticism that Miers is not the most qualified person for the job. We know for a fact that half of humanity—and a good deal more than half of the federal bench—was deemed ineligible to be chosen at the outset. I thought conservatives like the president believed that women could withstand open competition? Instead, Bush has subjected Miers to what he calls the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[….] President Bush will not give in to the increasing calls to withdraw her nomination. It’s not in his DNA to back down from a fight. Miers could withdraw herself, but that would only confirm another sexist stereotype: that when it comes to politics, women can’t handle the pressure.

The “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Hmm.

Well, meanwhile, Miers and the rest of us may check out Prof. Michael Dorf’s Con law Crash Course. I have to read this one very carefully – looks quite interesting… 😉

Ugh – more drizzle. Gray sky all day.

Angel beat the Yankees, and so they get to play ChiSox. Yanks and Bosox fall, and we get two different American League teams in the playoffs. So far, ChiSox lose Game One to the jet-lagged Californians. Methinks those Angels ain’t so jet-lagged (well, it’ll catch up to them soon enough). The Bosox’s championship last yet appears to set precedence for the ChiSox, so it’s possible that pigs may fly and yet another perennial loser team may end up being champs? Hmm…

Considering the line of work I’m in (focusing on the laws of anti-discrimination and all that) and my own interest in racial and ethnic histories of the USA, I still can’t make of my reaction of the following: when an Asian person walks up to you, an Asian person, and asks, “Are you Chinese?” (and yes, you are, but that’s besides the point), what are you supposed to do in return? I feel weird about it, and think of it almost as if it’s a total conversation stopper (before any conversation even begins). Perhaps this person is looking for someone of similar affinity or, perhaps this person (evidentally of Chinese origin and less-than-able English speaking ability) would like to speak to someone in Chinese (and I don’t fit the bill, as an ABC who has Learn to Speak Cantonese stuff collecting dust). Or perhaps I’m overly sensitive in feeling weird when someone asks “Are you Chinese?” – giving me that bad vibe of being seen as the “perpetual foreigner,” even to someone who’s also Chinese (who’d likely think less of me as an ABC anyway).

Daily News’ David Hinkley writes up on the 40th Anniversary of NYC’s All News radio station, 1010 WINS:

[….] The private anniversary celebration was held yesterday at Gotham Hall. The big public event was a listener poll earlier this year on the top-40 New York newsmakers of the past 40 years, with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani voted the winner.

Like all polls, it had some odd results – Bette Midler made the top 10 and David Dinkins didn’t make the list at all – but WINS published it and moved on.

WINS, as listeners know, rarely breaks its rhythm.

“With this station,” said general manager Greg Janoff, “people turn it on and within 30 seconds, they know if something is wrong. WINS has such a familiar sound that even a small deviation tips you off.”

In some ways, WINS’ sound hasn’t changed much in 40 years. The ticker. Traffic, weather, sports. Crisp delivery of the headlines. The three-times-an-hour news cycle.

“Give us 22 minutes and we’ll give you the world” is one of the city’s best-known slogans, though Janoff notes it does hide a small mystery: “No one knows for sure who at the ad agency first thought it up.”

Whatever that answer, [program director of WINS Mark ]Mason said the “22 minutes” mantra may also camouflage the fact that WINS newscasts are much different today than in 1965.

“The approach has turned almost 180 degrees,” he said. “In the beginning, the station concentrated heavily on traditional news like politics. But we found that what’s often more important to people is what affects them at that moment. When the Republican convention was here, we covered the political event less than the disruption.”

So in an age when many news/talk outlets channel everything toward the “big story” of the moment, WINS is more cautious. It takes a 9/11 or a Staten Island ferry crash for WINS to rearrange its news “clock.”

“We never break format lightly,” said Mason. “If we miss a traffic report, it’s a big deal. If we’re 40 seconds late for a traffic report, it’s a big deal.”

Whatever the WINS philosophy, it works.

In an average week, 2-1/2 million people at some point turn to WINS. If there’s a snowstorm, make it 3 million. In the weeks after 9/11, the total approached 4 million, an unheard-of number in today’s fragmented radio world.

“We’re as close to a mass-appeal radio station as you’ll find any more,” said Mason. “Because of what we do, our audience mirrors the city.

“We’re a utility. We’re like the light switch when you walk into the room. If you can rely on it to do the same thing every time you flick it on, it’s doing its job.”

Well, I can say that I spent way too many a late night letting the radio stay on 1010 back when I was in college, pulling all nighters and thinking that staying up with the Hawaiian overnight anchor Paul Guanzon would keep me awake. I liked how 1010 has its weird moments, when some stories sound unbelievably tabloid-y or brief to be taken too seriously, or how its on-air folks display their personalities (and their bios on the website are no less quirky).

Apparently, people didn’t recognize Justice Scalia while he was marching in the Columbus Day Parade, reports the NY Times’ Fernanda Santos; the article “Who’s That Guy? Without the Robes, Grand Marshal is Mystery” (got to love that headline!):

Justice Antonin Scalia, the first Italian-American to serve on the Supreme Court, returned to his hometown…

The highest-ranking government official to serve as grand marshal, Justice Scalia shares an honor bestowed in the past on the actress Sophia Loren, the racing champion Mario Andretti and the fashion designer Roberto Cavalli.

Despite Justice Scalia’s prominence, few paradegoers recognized him, a reflection perhaps of the Supreme Court justices’ long tradition of limiting their public appearances.

Still Justice Scalia, wearing the grand marshal’s glittery sash, was stared at, photographed and saluted by paradegoers as he made his way up Fifth Avenue, from 44th Street to the grandstand on 68th Street.

“Who’s that guy?” Frank Duarte, 38, a civil engineer from Wood-Ridge, N.J., asked his friend Mark Campesi, who suggested that Justice Scalia “must be some Italian politician.”

Moments later, Debbie Simunovich pointed toward the grandstand and urged her daughters to look that way, too. “Hey, I think that’s Roseanne Colletti,” Mrs. Simunovich, 45, said, referring to the WNBC correspondent who was reporting for the station’s live broadcast.

Asked about Justice Scalia, Mrs. Simunovich said: “I don’t know who he is. But he’s Italian, so that’s good.”

At the grandstand, Justice Scalia smiled timidly and waved at a crowd of onlookers, who chanted in unison, “Italia, Italia.”

“I feel wonderful,” Justice Scalia told the reporters who had followed him for 24 city blocks, peppering him with questions about Harriet E. Miers, President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee.

He refused to answer questions about Ms. Miers, and, at one point, asked one of the hulking men in suits who made up his security detail to clear away the reporters who were blocking his view.

Lawrence Auriana, the president of the Columbus Citizens Foundation, which organizes the parade, said the grand marshal “has to be a role model for all of us.

“We want, as the grand marshal, someone who is at the top of his profession and someone of good character,” Mr. Auriana said. “Justice Scalia fits the bill. He’s a man of passion – and that very well represents us, Italian-Americans.”

Justice Scalia, 69, had marched at the parade once before, five decades ago as a student at Xavier High School in Chelsea. Yesterday, he walked alongside a yellow Lamborghini that carried his wife of 45 years, Maureen.

Justice and Mrs. Scalia watched, for three hours, the floats, Lamborghinis, marching bands and law enforcement contingents that passed under an overcast sky. […]

When people recognize Roseanne Colletti more than you, you got to wonder, just a bit. Or maybe not, considering how hard those justices work at not being recognized. People may get J. Breyer and J. Souter mixed up; J. Thomas could be just another guy or J. Ginsburg just another lady. I guess they like it that way. So it goes.

Growing pains at Microsoft? Hmm.

A bit late of me to link, but I liked reading it – “The Has-Been” section on Slate discusses Democrats who have actual ideas and ideals and he links to Barack Obama’s interesting article, which was posted on the political liberal blog, Daily Kos. (Senator Obama’s article is also cross-posted on own blog on his official website). Such great writing, and Senator Obama makes great points. The Democratic Party has to stand for something, but can’t be raving idiots about it either.

Wallace and Gromit – the little clay characters’ movie studios had a bad fire. Poor guys. Even though their new movie’s doing great and had excellent reviews, their props were lost.

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as Grand Marshal of the NYC Columbus Day Parade. Seems like he enjoyed himself:

Nearly a half century after he marched in New York’s Columbus Day parade as a high school student, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia returned to his hometown Monday to lead marchers up Fifth Avenue as the procession’s grand marshal. [….]

Scalia, the first Italian-American to serve on the Supreme Court, marched in a brown suit and white sash and waved to the crowd while his wife, Maureen, followed in a gold Lamborghini.

Asked how the experience compared to his previous marches in the 1950s as a student at Xavier High School, in Manhattan, Scalia joked, “I’m older now.”

“It’s a terrific day. It’s been a nice walk,” he said.

CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo interviewed J. Scalia; check out the clip on CNBC. Personally, I think it’s a little odd he’s named Grand Marshal, when he’s been on the Court for 20 years. Why pick him now? (not that he’s a bad choice; I mean, Italian-Americans who have Significant Achievements are great picks for parades).

Back to work tomorrow; was so nice to have had a day off, even if the weather’s still dreary (drizzle, drizzle, drizzle).

It’s been a wet Saturday in the city. Some stuff of note below; pardon the long posting, as it has been a few days since I’ve blogged…

Quake in Pakistan. This may turn into quite a concern.

While the news wasn’t unexpected, it’s still weird to really admit: Ted Koppel’s stepping down from “Nightline,” with an official last date of Nov. 22, 2005.

BBC’s Sir David Frost, joining Al-Jazeera?

Justice Scalia will be the marshall of the Columbus Day Parade on Monday. Hmm.

Link to Findlaw about this weird article reported by Associated Press writer Beverley Wang:

A parking dispute between two well-to-do oceanfront neighbors that has gone on for over a year has led to a court fight that includes allegations of stalking, pounding of nails into tires, secret videotaping, and dousing of others with a sprinkler. Videotapes played in court show one side giving the finger toward the neighbors’ home.

One judge likened the battling [New Hampshire] neighbors to Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. And you thought you had obnoxious neighbors.

The two principal antagonists, Beverly Hollingworth and Peter Hutchins, are used to playing for high stakes in the public eye – she as a legislator, he as a trial lawyer.

Hollingworth, 69, is a former New Hampshire Senate president who ran for governor three years ago. Hutchins, 47, won millions from the Roman Catholic Church on behalf of alleged victims of sexual abuse.

At issue is whether Hollingworth is entitled to park at the end of a narrow gravel road in front of a house the Hutchinses bought last year on Great Boar’s Head Point, a spit of land that juts into the Atlantic Ocean. [….]

Separately, Hutchins’ wife, Kathy, has accused Hollingworth’s husband, William Gilligan, of stalking her. She testified she felt threatened when Gilligan told her, “You have no class,” and “You have no shame,” after witnesses said they saw her douse her neighbors’ guests with a lawn sprinkler.

The Hollingworth side claims that Mrs. Hutchins was caught on videotape hammering a nail into a tire on Hollingworth’s car at night. Mrs. Hutchins claimed she was “banging” on the tire but did not puncture it. She has pleaded not guilty to attempted criminal mischief.

Videotapes played in court also showed the Hutchinses giving the finger toward the Hollingworth house and Mrs. Hutchins slapping her buttocks and bending over as Hollingworth and Gilligan passed in their car. Mrs. Hutchins said last week she was simply bending over.

Other neighbors have been drawn into the fray.

“Everyone up there is in fear of personal harm of some kind, and property harm,” said Robert Crowley, whose lives between the battling couples. “It is extremely tense.”[….]

Hollingworth and her husband have temporarily vacated the house, which she has owned since 1976. The Hutchinses do not live in their house; they plan to tear it down and rebuild.

Last month, District Judge Thomas Rappa urged the couples to try to resolve the dispute and appreciate their seaside homes, instead of trying to “outmaneuver the other party like Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner.”

“Reach deep within yourselves,” he counseled. “Grow as individuals, have some tolerance toward your neighbors, and show some respect.”

Hmm. It can’t be good when the judge compares you and your opposition as Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. But, at least he isn’t comparing you to either Yosemite Sam or Elmer Fudd in their respective quests to be rid of Bugs Bunny…

And, here’s another Findlaw link: Associated Press Randall Chase reports on “Delaware Supreme Court rules in favor of anonymous blogger in defamation claim”:

The Delaware Supreme Court rejected a town councilman’s quest to find out who posted obscenity-laden tirades about him on the Internet, saying free speech concerns outweighed the politician’s argument that he was defamed.

The decision Wednesday reversed a lower court ruling ordering an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of four anonymous posters to a blog site operated by Independent Newspapers Inc., publisher of the Delaware State News.

The posted entries, among other things, accused Smyrna councilman Patrick Cahill of “obvious mental deterioration” and used the name “Gahill” to suggest that he is homosexual.

In June, the lower court ruled that Cahill had established a “good faith basis” for contending that he and his wife were victims of defamation, and it affirmed a previous order for Comcast Cable Communications to disclose the bloggers’ identities.

But Chief Justice Myron Steele likened anonymous Internet speech to anonymous political pamphleteering, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court characterized in 1995 as “an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.”

Accordingly, Steele wrote, a court should not order the unmasking of an anonymous Internet poster unless a plaintiff offers strong proof of defamation.

“We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously,” Steele wrote. “The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all.”

Steele also noted that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and “generally set the record straight,” and that, as in Cahill’s case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.

“Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. … The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning,” he wrote. [….]

So, free speech – to the extent that blogs exist for the purpose of not saying anything particularly substantive – even if it may be insulting – is protected? Hmm. Well, off the top of my head, I can’t remember the elements to state a claim of defamation, forget proving it. I just don’t think it makes much sense to go after a bunch of anonymous nitwits or force a newspaper to reveal who these nitwits were. So, why would you want to sue a bunch of anonymous nitwits for defamation? Just do what most would do – ignore ’em.

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick posits the following:

Over the last week it has been said that Harriet Miers is an “inkblot.” That’s supposed to mean she has no visible horns, no discernible politics, and no paper trail; that she’s a huge national mystery. But what it should really mean is that she has become a huge national Rorschach test: We look at her and can see nothing beyond our own fears and anxieties. [….]

What’s the result of a system in which everyone scrutinizes the nominee, finds nothing, then projects their own paranoia and anxiety onto the entire confirmation process? Well, for one thing we have abandoned the responsibility to scrutinize the actual candidate. Each side lets the other side set the agenda. Everyone waits to see what the other team thinks, and when that can’t be ascertained for certain, we invent crazy scripts for what they likely think.

Members of the Senate have a duty to figure out who Harriet Miers really is. That duty ought to transcend the shallow current task of determining that we only like her if they don’t. Granted, it’s almost an impossible task to figure out who the nominee really is since confirmation hearings produce virtually no substantive information, and this nominee has no known views. The White House won’t let us see any of her work product from her stint as White House counsel. And the class of questions nominees choose to avoid expands with every nomination. But what we cannot continue to do is react reflexively to one another; respond to invisible secret files we imagine the other team is chuckling over late at night over a cigar and a brandy.

Rorschach tests work, to the extent they do, because they reveal that the viewer is crazy without ever confronting him with that fact directly. That unacknowledged craziness is exactly what both sides of the judicial confirmation wars are now betraying: Faced with the impossibility of really knowing someone, much less predicting their behavior into the far distant future, we gaze at a meaningless drawing and see only our worst selves.

Great article. Makes excellent points and raises very real concerns that I’ve been having ever since the John Roberts nomination.

The coverage on Harriet Miers, White House General Counsel-Supreme Court nominee, has been interesting stuff. I like the Slate coverage – amusing stuff. MSNBC ain’t so bad either. Thought it was weird that the announcement of her nomination overshadowed Ch.J. Roberts’ first First Monday, but I guess George W. Bush is doing what he will. Oh well.

I tweaked my 9/3/05 post; I ought to edit myself better.

Major League Baseball playoffs time – Yanks v. Angels; Bosox v. ChiSox; St. Louis v. San Diego; Atlanta v. Houston. Hmm. And, no “House, M.D.” until baseball is over in November. Darn…

FOX sitcoms: Monday’s “Arrested Development” was hilarious. Michael Bluth (played by Jason Bateman) went into denial that he even has a family (so that he may date Charlize Theron’s character). The Bluth family has a new lawyer, since Henry (Fonzie) Winkler (the actor) is unavailable to play the recurring lawyer character. So, of course, if Fonzie’s not in, you go get Scott Baio (the ex-Chachi of “Happy Days”/the ex-Charles of “Charles in Charge”). Scott Baio’s “Bob Loblaw, Esq.” Say it three times fast now. That’s right. Tee-hee. He’s an extremely humorless attorney, too (his personality, that is; he ends up being funny that way): Lindsay Bluth’s all but throwing herself at him (yep, Chachi’s still a cutie at his age), and Bob Loblaw’s just charging her for wasting his time. Darn attorney’s fees.

“Kitchen Confidential” – Monday’s episode: Jack (played by that ex-Alias actor Bradley Cooper, who was so amusingly psychotic on “Wedding Crashers”) has to use his cooking skills to make such decadent food to literally cause his cooking school teacher’s death. John Larroquette (the ex-Dan Fielding, Esq., of “Night Court” fame) plays the tough and cholesterol-filled chef/teacher. His character cannot have anymore bypass surgeries, and feels that if he had to die, he would die eating his best student’s food. (and he nominates Jack to be his favorite student). Only, Jack’s conscience gets the best of him – see, Jack no longer does crazy, stupid things (he’s sober; he won’t go overboard; he won’t kill or do other harm), which disappoints his teacher, who insteads dies after eating a not-very-hygienic hot dog stand hot dog. Oops. But, strangely funny. The show needs work, but has potential. (but, I miss John Cho as the seafood specialist chef; he was funny and he avoided making such a bland looking show).

ABA eJournal reports that Americans are disappointed with judges. Martha Neil writes:

More than half of Americans are angry and disappointed with the nation’s judiciary, a new survey done for the ABA Journal eReport shows.

A majority of the survey respondents agreed with statements that “judicial activism” has reached the crisis stage, and that judges who ignore voters’ values should be impeached. Nearly half agreed with a congressman who said judges are “arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable.” [….]

The Opinion Research Corp. conducted the survey, calling 1,016 adults throughout the country in early September. Participants included 505 men and 511 women aged 18 or older. Due to the effects of Hurricane Katrina, residents of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi were not polled.

Calls were made to a random sample of American households. Those surveyed were asked questions about their age and education levels, and were asked to give one of six answers—strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree or don’t know—in response to public statements criticizing the judiciary.

Fifty-six percent of the respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with the opinions expressed in each of two survey statements:

* A U.S. congressman has said, “Judicial activism … seems to have reached a crisis. Judges routinely overrule the will of the people, invent new rights and ignore traditional morality.” (Twenty-nine percent strongly agreed and 27 percent somewhat agreed.)

* A state governor has said that court opinions should be in line with voters’ values, and judges who repeatedly ignore those values should be impeached. (Twenty-eight percent strongly agreed and 28 percent somewhat agreed.)

Forty-six percent strongly or somewhat agreed with the opinion expressed in a third statement:

* A U.S. congressman has called judges arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable. (Twenty-one percent strongly agreed and 25 percent somewhat agreed.)

Among the respondents, younger adults were less likely than older adults to agree with all three statements. Those with a college education were more likely to disagree with the statements than high school graduates.

Only 30 percent of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed with the first statement and 32 percent felt the same way about the second statement. The most disagreement was reflected in the responses to the third statement, with which 38 percent took issue.

Two percent to 3 percent responded “don’t know,” and the remainder of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statements.

The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 3 percentage points, at the 95 percent confidence level. Opinion Research Corp. says survey results were “weighted by age, sex, geographic region and race to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total population.”

The congressman referenced in the first question is Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who made the comment at an April 2005 rally in Washington, D.C. The governor in the second question is Matt Blunt, a Missouri Republican, who reportedly made the comment during an interview with a religious publication in May 2005. The congressman in the third question is House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who made the comment in March 2005.

Several legal scholars responding to the survey results were startled by the numbers.

Georgetown’s [Mark] Tushnet says he didn’t realize the level of dissatisfaction was so high. “What I had thought was the case was that there was a significantly higher residue of general respect for the courts,” he says. “And these numbers suggest that that’s not true.”

[Charles G.] Geyh of Indiana University says the survey suggests “a trajectory” upward in the number of people unhappy with the American judiciary—apparently simply because these critics disagree with the law that judges have a duty to apply.

The idea that judges should “somehow follow the voters’ views really reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what judges are supposed to do,” he continues. “They should only be criticized when they ignore the law and start infusing their own values into the law regardless of the law.” [….]

The way I see it, I think it’s terribly disturbing that neither America’s politicians nor its citizenry seem to understand that voters aren’t supposed to affect the judiciary (unless you’re in a district where you have an elected judiciary, but even then you might end up with a corrupted and dimwitted judiciary). And, certain politicians and citizens seem ill-informed to make evaluations on the judiciary (at least the survey suggests that those with more education wouldn’t make the judgment that the judiciary is “arrogant” and “out-of-control”). If the legislators don’t like what the judges do, they at least can make the law to reverse what the judges did. Do we not know how checks-and-balances work?