Category: Washington, D.C.

Public service reminder to go vote today, if you’re a registered voter. It is not a perfect system, but voting is a civic duty and a right (it’s not a mere “privilege”; people have died for this right).

And, for four out of five boroughs of New York City: remember to flip the two page ballot to vote on judges and the ballot questions; and tear along the perforated lines to let the scanner scan one page at a time. See here for the NY1 Voter Guide, complete with links on debunking voting myths and a video on how to complete and tear the ballot.

The NYC Board of Elections video:

NPR’s Ron Elving on how to keep calm and other last minute Election Day tips. I’d add remember to breathe.

I’m not telling you how to vote, but be sure to reflect with a brain cell, and vote. This kind of decision-making’s not easy, and we do it because it isn’t easy – that’s the nature of this democratic republic.

Time for some serious checks and balances.

Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for our country. – John F. Kennedy.

Thank you to Barack Obama for your service and your efforts. Thank you to Michelle Obama, and to Joe Biden and to Jill Biden.

For the sake of the country, I hope for the best.

Friday, January 20, 2017 – Donald Trump, the president-elect who had lost the popular vote, officially became president. He’s hardly comparable to Kennedy, at least for the moment, anyway (at minimum: JFK served the country before he became president – serving in war and in the Senate; Trump was a private sector person his entire career, and avoided the Vietnam War, the war of his generation).

There have been other presidents from the City of New York and the state of New York, but I would not compare the new president to Theodore or Franklin D. Roosevelt. The new president isn’t even comparable to former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, a former New York Governor who was a wealthy liberal or progressive Republican (the old-fashioned kind, who switched back and forth between the public and private sectors) and one who was a major philanthropist.

I had nostalgia for 2009,  the days when Obama came in and there was so much hope.  I have to keep hoping; is it so wrong?

I watched the inaugural speech by the new president, making myself do it as a student/witness of history.  I can’t say that I liked it at all.  There were words, but devoid of real hope or – to me – sincerity.  Slate’s Jamelle Bouie noted that by saying “America First,” the new president was really identifying what he thinks is “American” and some kind of domination by that kind of America.

Slate’s Will Saletan noted about the inaugural speech: “On Friday, a morally empty man gave a morally empty speech. There was no talk of humility, no acknowledgment of enduring prejudice, no plea for decency.”  Saletan wouldn’t compare Trump to the last Republican president, George W. Bush, stating, “This is why Trump is unworthy of your respect. It’s not because he didn’t win the popular vote. It’s not because of his party or his policies. It’s not because of Russia. It’s because of who he is. For all his faults, even those that turned out to be disastrous, Bush was a decent man. He believed in something greater than himself. Trump doesn’t.”

I thought that this article by Paul Waldman in the Washington Post, “A Liberal’s to Conservatives on the Occasion of Trump’s Inauguration,” was a worthwhile read.  Waldman, identifying as a liberal who received conservatives’ letters  of “You lost; shut up,” has the following response:

Please, don’t tell us liberals that when we criticize Trump we’re doing terrible damage to the convivial spirit that would otherwise prevail were we not so rude. We’ve heard that baloney before, and it’s pretty rich coming from people who spent the last eight years saying that Barack Obama was a foreign socialist tyrant carrying out a secret plan to destroy America.

So spare us your hypocritical talk of unity, because your champion sure doesn’t believe it. We’ve seen it clearly since the election: once he goes off his teleprompter, we get not even the pretense of unity from Donald Trump. Quite the contrary; he communicates again and again that he has nothing but contempt for those who don’t pay him proper tribute. [….]

You don’t like it when we get angry? Deal with it. We’re angry now, and we’ll stay angry. We’ll be angry when this president and this Congress try to take health coverage from tens of millions and health security from hundreds of millions. We’ll be angry when they try to cut off women’s access to health care, and cut taxes for the wealthy, and slash the safety net. We’ll be angry when they gut environmental regulations, and promote discrimination, and attack voting rights, and remove restraints on Wall Street misbehavior.

I know many liberals who believe this is the end of America as we know it, that Trump is such an authoritarian and so imbalanced that the damage he will inflict on our nation and our world will be impossible to undo. People speak of an unprecedented era of corruption, of a withering attack on all the institutions of democracy, even of a nuclear war brought on by Trump’s unique combination of ignorance and impulsiveness.

I try not to be quite so pessimistic, to keep my fear in check. But only time will tell. And if these next years turn out the way we fear, understand this: We will never allow you to forget what you have countenanced and joined with. The stain of 2016 and everything that is about to follow is on you. You fell behind this man and assented to everything he is. Your hands will never be clean.

And we will fight. We may not win most of the time — with control of the White House and Congress, there is a great deal Republicans will be able to do no matter how much the Democrats or the public object. But we will fight, precisely because we love our country and care about its future. We liberals know well that you like to think that you alone are the “real” Americans and you alone have the country’s true interests at heart. But we stopped submitting to that calumny some time ago.

So I say to my conservative friends: You want liberals to pipe down and get behind our new president? Too damn bad.

I liked Waldman’s points, and I agree.  Honestly, I’m all for unity and consensus, but bottom line is that I don’t care for the language of “you lost, shut up, get over it.” That’s not saying “let’s come together” or “we disagree, but we’re still one country”; that’s shutting down dialog and asserting domination. Disagreement from the party that lost – that’s about loyal dissent – the right to speak up when it sure doesn’t look right. The opposition to the new administration will still need to figure out how to be opposition, but the party that one should not expect easy deference. I have empathy and acknowledgment of others; it’d be nice if they do the same for me.

And, “loyal opposition” is defined as the following, according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary: “a minority party especially in a legislative body whose opposition to the party in power is constructive, responsible, and bounded by loyalty to fundamental interests and principles.” It’s not exactly an idea that’s well-thought of in this country, because it’s more of a British/Commonwealth parliamentary idea.  According to Wikipedia (granted, not the best of resources, but close enough for my purposes), loyal opposition is:

intended to illustrate that Members of Parliament in a country’s legislature may oppose the policies of the incumbent government—typically comprising parliamentarians from the party with the most seats in the elected legislative chamber—while maintaining deference to the higher authority of the state and the larger framework within which democracy operates. The concept thus permits the dissent necessary for a functioning democracy without fear of being accused of treason.

I think that we need to appreciate “loyal opposition” – this is not about people whose patriotism or intentions should be questioned; it’s about people whose views are to be heard and considered, even if we disagree.  It’s tough for everyone to be kind to each other, when things are tough. But, a little respect or empathy or acknowledgement of each other could go a long way.  See here for NPR’s Scott Simon’s asking for Americans to find respect of each other – and if the new president could make that possible.  It’s a lot to ask, but it’s nice to hope for this.

Greg Popovich, head coach of the San Antonio Spurs (and former intelligence officer of the US military, said, on Saturday, January 21, 2017, “I just wish [the new president] was more … had the ability to be mature enough to do something that really is inclusive, rather than just talking and saying, ‘I’m going to include everyone.’”

Inclusion. Unity. Optimism. Hope – it sounds a little crazy, but “hope” is a word that says a lot.  On Saturday, January 21, 2017, I saw hope when I watched on the news, including on Gothamist, or through Facebook the Women’s Marches all over the world and in New York City – and Washington DC. Here’s a link to the NY Times’ coverage, including what was going on in New York City, on what happens next.

See here for more photos of the march in New York City from Gothamist.

See here from NPR on the story of the pussyhats. I remembered catching a story about women making the pussyhats on tv. It was really nice to see such positive spirit over a word that might not have been that comfortable a word to employ… language being what it is (and no thanks to a new president, that is). Regarding the marches, NPR also had photos from DC and the world.

Slate has some photos on the great signs from the marches.

I might be a little overboard with my attempt at resistance by referring to Trump as “president-elect” or “the new president” – but I guess that I’ve been trying to process what has been going on in American politics, and triscribe.com will bear the brunt of this (let alone Facebook).  I’ll go back to my usual pop culture/whatever stuff soon enough, and go back to trying to keep away from politics. But, hope is where we can find it.  Keep hope alive.

The passing of Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court, on Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016.  Here’s the in-depth obituary in the NY Times, by Adam Liptak.

Check out the link to NPR’s Nina Totenberg’s remembrance of J. Scalia.   I liked how Totenberg explained some questions of concern – the work of the US Supreme will still continue (that’s a given), but if there’s a 4-4 tie on some cases, there won’t be precedential value for some cases beyond the circuits of the cases’ origins.

Slate’s Jordan Weissmann has some analysis on what might occur with some cases, including the affirmative action case (which is back at the US Supreme Court again).  (I’ll also link Weissmann’s article on how the phrases “jiggery-pokery” and “pure applesauce” became part of the mythos of Scalia).

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick on how J. Scalia captivated us, even when a whole lot of us may have vehemently disagreed with him.  There really won’t be a US S.Ct. justice like him anymore (probably, anyway).  Lithwick’s remembrance of Scalia is also worth a read.

Personally, I wish we didn’t have to be so partisan right away about who will replace Scalia, since his passing was so sudden and shocking.

But, of course, the debating went into high gear, with the Republicans already decrying the idea of any confirmation of a prospective nominee.  President Obama is still president, and he has a job to do – pick a nominee for the Court.  If the Senate won’t do its job… well, I guess it’s on them.

See here in the NY Times by Carl Hulse and Mark Landler about how the battle lines are drawn.   And, as Lithwick noted, Obama has a lot of prospective nominees; it’s not like there isn’t a whole load of choices, even possibly moderate ones.

The Republicans might very well hit new level of ludicrousness here.   We might want to revisit how this country handled, say, the failed nomination of Abe Fortas under the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, or the confirmed nomination of Anthony Kennedy under Ronald Reagan’s administration (under the final year of that administration, at that). But, we really haven’t had anything like this at all in modern history, at least nothing that might last a full year of a vacancy.

(NPR has an overview on the time frames and nominations of yore).

PBS NewsHour also has a nice review on how ugly this could get, without a hope of compromise (at least, nothing on the horizon, anyway).

It’s easy for me to blame the Republicans, from the armchair quarterback position.  It’s not like I’m the one making appointments or confirming them.  I did a search of Scalia in past posts on the triscribe blog, and as I said here in the post on Jeffrey Toobin’s book, The Oath,  about how things could get messy (and that was my commentary about the nomination of Srikanth “Sri” Srinivasan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (later confirmed)): realistically and in a fair-minded way, I think it might even get hard to figure out who to blame in the long run (if, say, the President doesn’t pick a perfectly good candidate to make the Republicans look foolish here).

But, maybe it’s not about blaming anyone; maybe it’s about making sure that things get done and we don’t get stupid?  Or is that wishful thinking on my part?

At least there isn’t total ugliness: let’s remember that J. Scalia and J. Ginsburg had a warm friendship, despite the political and jurisprudential differences.  (I thought this article at vox.com by Dara Lind was interesting about that, in light of how uncivil our world is these days).  People are people and maybe we could look to our better angels and how we can be good to each other.

Oh, well, on a ice cold Valentine’s Day, there is a lot of food for thought.  Stay warm!

So… the US Supreme Court got down the wire, as it always does during the last week of June, before it goes on its summer break.  Looks like the case on marriage equality is about 100 pages (majority and dissent opinions). They sure know how to make things interesting…

Meanwhile, I really appreciated that NPR shared on Facebook a video of their own Nina Totenberg giving a less-than-two-minute overview of those 100ppgs, with the interesting remarks of the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy and the biting dissent.  (NPR and its Facebook page).

PBS Newshour also has a nice breakdown of the case.

I also have to get around to reading the US Supreme Court decision that came out the other day on how disparate impact may now be considered as a basis for housing discrimination (see here for the NY Times coverage on it by Adam Liptak; here for the decision).  I liked the dialog/analysis over at PBS NewsHour on the case.  It’ll be curious to see how disparate impact might work in housing discrimination…

Considering how I had done a couple of housing discrimination cases,  I like the idea of having some more tools in the arsenal that would be helpful and housing discrimination is tricky business without effective tools.  Disparate impact would really approach it in a broader but targeted way (even if people feel uncomfortable about not looking for alleged intent, disparate impact really digs deeper into addressing social injustice by examining the effects).

Oh, and yeah, there’s that decision on the health care law (Liptak’s article in the NY Times here; the actual decision here).

Any lawyer can tell you that the constitutional cases aren’t short reads, but trying to get through them and make sense of them – well, not the simplest of reading, but it means something to me.  Fortunately, e-readers make that a little easier – at least, I’d like to think so, but I barely got to really reading last year’s decisions after downloading them and as a news junkie, I’d like to try better and as a lawyer, at most, I end up reading the decisions most relevant to my area of work – but as a US S.Ct. curiosity seeker, well, there’s a weird fun to all of this, whether I like how a decision goes or not.  (I’ve been a sucker to read Slate’s Supreme Court Breakfast Table feature every June the last couple of years).

And, while I’m not sure how the future will go, I’d like to think that the decisions this week were positive steps to a better and fairer society.  Keep hope alive, everybody!

Oh, and otherwise: my current reading is Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale, the first James Bond book.  Probably not legal-related as I can get this week; I need a break…!

(cross-posted over at sswslitinmotion.tumblr.com).

Welcome to the Not in Arizona edition, as triscriber FC and a whole bunch of the NY metro area contingent of the Asian Pacific American bar headed to Phoenix/Scottsdale for the National Asian Pacific Bar Association (NAPABA) 2014 Convention. But, I’m still in town, as a polar vortex is coming. I can handle cold, but this is bizarro weather. Global climate change is unstable and weird (and yes, I know climate and weather are two different things).

Some new New Yorker formerly from Florida wrote to Gothamist and asked if winter would kill her.  I had to laugh. I’m like: we have winter, but what we really have is something like four or three and a half seasons. If you want real winter, you would have to go up to Albany or parts north, where they get the cold temperatures and snow. Don’t be chicken about a NYC winter. (but ok, I get people are scared of cold).

Election Day – I think I’m away from the day itself to stop feeling bummed. It was not one of the better Election Days. People: you’re supposed to vote every year, not just every four years for president. Okay, off the soap box now.

Some exciting news: So, US Attorney Loretta Lynch of Eastern District of NY (covering Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island) will be nominated for Attorney General. Very interesting. According to the article, if she’s confirmed, it’d be almost 200 years since a US Attorney would get the nod to be Attorney General. I had no idea that such a thing would be so rare. Also: I’m pretty sure that (if confirmed), she’d be the 1st African-American woman AG. Also: Brooklyn!!

It’s National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) and I’m doing it again. I’m not sure if this is going to work, but I had to get back to writing fiction. Legal writing, with the whole “the parties are [practically lying, etc.]; and the actions do not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct…” can only do so much for me. And, my fiction writing writers block has been horrific. Spirit of NaNoWriMo is going to have to do some magic.

I’m still sort of blogging about my NaNo over at tumblr, although that’s lightly done, since I’m trying to figure out what am I writing… preparation back in October was not nearly as much as I’d hope, so there is a lot of “make it up as I go along.”

I’m writing about a superhero, who’s trying to get out of the business, but can’t quite do it. Oh, you couldn’t tell that I was thinking about that from the posts on triscribe? (see below on my rambling on Batman, “Gotham,” “The Flash” – and no, I’m still not on the “Arrow” bandwagon)… Anyway, we’ll see how this goes.

Doctor Who, Series/Season 8 (post reboot), is currently on a marathon on BBC America, as a prelude to the finale tonight. Plus the first episode of BBC Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) at 8pm, since BBC America wants to go all out. And I’m supposed to get outside at some point… and keep writing.

Meanwhile, over on “Elementary,” Sherlock (Jonny Lee Miller) is trying to re-establish himself in NYC. I’m not sure if it’s working (he burned a lot of people by heading back to London to (unsuccessfully) work for MI-6), and his new apprentice is annoying (although the hints of horrific and tragic back story might redeem her – but her name of “Kitty” is… annoying).

Okay, back to (fiction) writing.