Fun From a Juice Box

Been grabbing neat images wherever I find them. Julie was drinking juice at the office, and I noticed this design.

Undefeated

On Sunday, the Brett Favres, the Cornell English Department's intramural basketball team (men's open division), opened its season with a 38-33 victory over CCIV. Ben Warner, captain, led the team with superb outside shooting.

I have to say I was totally psyched to be playing organized basketball for the first time in four years. I even took a charge (on which, however, there was no whistle).

Free Pizza

Yesterday evening, instead of rushing from a great poetry seminar straight to my Karate Do training, I stopped by the Big Red Barn with some friends on rumors of free pizza. We finished off what was left (a tiny bit) and with stomachs grumbling thought about heading home, when we learned they'd ordered more pizza, pretty much just for us. Not only did I eat ten of these little rectangular pieces, I brought home this entire pie.

Cookies

I bet you wish you were in my workshop today, so you could have some of these fantastic white-chocolate chip cookies. Recipe courtesy of ccyganow.

Capote

Yesterday I went with a bunch of friends to see Capote. During the movie it is easy to forget that Capote's story is supposed to be central. At many junctures one sympathizes far more with Perry Smith, the convicted murderer, than with Capote; and since the chronology of Perry's case dictates the pace and sequence of the movie, it's easy to consider his story primary.

At the end, however, a brief, text-only epilogue recenters the film on Capote's experiences: the morally suspect actions he takes to pursue his writing and the intesity with which he comes to identify with his subject... at times.

Capote never really loses himself in the emotion of his friendship with Perry, but he does lose himself in his construction of Perry's story. When the epilogue informs us that Capote never finished another book after In Cold Blood, the suggestion is clear that he somehow never got over the executions that tie up that book.

The really scary thing about this movie is how it presumes to tell the story of Truman Capote by relating a single episode from his life, his struggle to write the first true crime novel. It is a warning to a writer not to let a single work so dominate his time and mentality that it will define not only his career, but his identity.

I'm glad I am at work on four different poems, plus blogging, photographing, taking classes, playing chess and poker, and learning the paleo-Hebrew alphabet. With singlemindedness comes great power, and great peri.l

Falls Below Beebe Lake, Friday

I really like the intensity of the green in the trees on the right. This view from the bridge is one of my favorite in Ithaca, and the ice hanging on the gorge walls is fantastic.

The Sky from Wegman's on Thursday

I thought this was beautiful

Negotiating with Terrorists

So we have another message from our old friend, Osama bin Laden. Will someone remind me again why it is that, as our Vice President reminded us, "We don't negotiate with terrorists"? Yes, thank you. It's because by negotiating with terrorists we might give them hope of achieving concrete aims by taking hostages and holding them for ransom; and we want to deter such behavior.

But does our policy in fact discourage terrorists from trying to negotiate? It seems not. NPR reports that today is the "deadline" for the U.S. to release all females incarcerated in Iraq in order to prevent the death of kidnapped journalist Jill Carrol.

It seems to me that refusing to negotiate with terrorists won't deter people who will kill their hostages gladly. Refusing to negotiate can only deter people who do want something concrete far more than they want to do violence, like kidnappers for cash ransom who gain nothing at all by being stuck with a hostage (dead or alive).

But terrorists, as such, can achieve plenty by taking hostages, making demands, and killing those hostages when their demands are not met. They achieve, precisely, terror.

This is why a "war on terror" is such a bad idea: War does not limit or alter the options of a terrorist as it limits and alters the options of a state. A terrorist is always already outside the law, outside a treaty system, and outside of negotiations. It seems to me that a war on terror might be a counterexample to Carl von Clausewitz's famous maxim, that "war is politics by other means."

Beware of Robots?

I just stumbled upon a couple of scary/happy pages on the growing robot threat. See Sam Waterston, the Law & Order star, as spokesman for Old Glory Insurance here.

And here are some tips on what to do when the robot uprising comes. Fight back!!

First Photos

Got my PowerShot A520 yesterday, via UPS. The array of options it offers makes it clear to me how little I actually know about photography. Yes, I can adjust the aperture settings and shutter speed manually, but I don't know yet how to do so effectively.

Executive Session

The Senators have gone behind closed doors now for the habitual closed session after questioning a nominee. Witness panels open in an hour and a half. One Senator (I think it was Schumer) asked Alito whether, if he is in fact approved, he would consider recusing himself from cases decided by the active judges who are testifying on his behalf. The idea hadn't occurred to him, and he hadn't thought about it. I think it's a sharp question, and I'm really not sure what the right answer is.

The question is: Could the President invade Iran tomorrow without Congressional approval, absent evidence of an immediate danger to American security. Alito responds that the law is clearly not settled in this matter. It is settled, he says, that if the Congress has no time to act, the President may go ahead without their approval.

I wasn't aware of the suggestion, by the Administration of Bush the Elder, that Congress's Constitutional power to declare war was in place so that they could compel the President to go to war if he didn't want to, and not in order to delegate to the Congress the exclusive power to go to war. That seems awfully implausible to me (and the Elder Bush's Administration dropped it).

Alito Hearings - Day 4

Mostly this is a rehash of Vanguard and CAP. In Senator Hatch's words, "beating a dead horse." Yep. But Senator Leahy asked some good questions about how, and whether, Alito's conception of the unitary executive priviledge affects Congress's ability to regulate the commissions, which if they are part of the Federal Government at all must be part of the Executive branch. I think I'm pretty comfortable with Alito's answer, which made it clear that statutes can set restrictions on the President's ability to hire and fire th heads of the commissions at well, if they are appointed for defined terms.

Senator Biden is starting up now. Senator Specter promises flexibility in allocating time because he "sees the light at the end of the tunnel." Biden is opening with war powers questions. Should be interesting.

Schumer vs. Alito on CAP

Schumer went after Alito on the CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton) question again this afternoon, and just around 5:15 Alito came close, very close to explaining his position, but then backed off. This is what he said (quoted from the transcripts available at C-SPAN):

ALITO: I think you have to look at the question that I was responding to and the form that I was filling out. I was applying for a position in the Reagan administration. And my answers were truthful statements, but what I was trying to outline were the things that were relevant to obtaining a political position.

ALITO: I mentioned some very minor political contributions.

I didn't mention contributions to charitable organizations. And that's not because the contributions to charitable organizations were unimportant. It's just that...

And here, alas, Alito got cut off. I've finally gone and read the cover letter (available here, on Senator Kennedy's website, by the way) in which Alito mentions his CAP membership. It is abundantly clear that his main concern in the letter is to present himself as a good conservative, a suitable candidate for a job with the Reagan administration. The letter opens, "I am and always have been a conservative..." and when, in a single sentence near the letter's close, he mentions his memberships in the Federalist Society and CAP, his motivation is the same.

He writes: "I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon meetings and a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group." It's just a tack-on!

I also want to point out that despite Senator Bill Bradley's public resignation from CAP, he introduced and endorsed Alito for the Third Circuit position, in 1990. If Bradley had a problem with CAP, and Alito shared CAP's views, I suspect Senatory Bradley would have tempered his endorsement.

Why doesn't Alito make it clear-- to a room of politicians, no less-- that in obtaining a political position in the Readgan Administration it was clearly worth dropping the name of the controversial Alumni group?

Go Tigers!

Senator Joe Biden just put on a Princeton cap! He's proud of their current student composition (27% minority, according to him), but he's still trying to figure out Alito's affiliation with CAP. I think he was trying to give Alito a way out by saying, "Did you think that CAP might favorably impress your prospective employers?" But Alito obviously cannot say, "Yes, I was manipulating my employers. I knew they'd like seeing that, so I joined CAP without participating."

What did happen? I'm pretty lost. I guess whatever the truth is must be embarrassing to Alito, and that's too bad. It's embarrassing now, too. To everyone. It's petty of Senators to pursue it, but also necessary. It's lame of Alito to hide the truth, but also necessary.

My Tentative View on CAP (Still Thinking)

On a few minutes reflection, however, it seems to me pretty damn weird that Alito wasn't aware of the controversy that CAP stirred up at Princeton, including letters from it to all living alumni and a letter of response from Princeton's then-president. All of this happened before 1985, when CAP shows up on Alito's resume.

Mind you, I think I still believe Alito when he says he wasn't aware of the group's activities. But then the flaw, and it's a major one, is sticking something on your resume that you don't know much about. That's really quite shady.

Specter isn't ruling on the motion. We're on to Sen. Grassley's second round questions now. Totally crazy.

Kennedy versus Specter

Senator Kennedy just moved to pull the committee to an executive session to vote on requesting a subpoena for all of CAP's records. He's been grilling and badgering Alito. Specter basically just said, "If this was important, then you might have mentioned it to me in the past." Now they're fighting over whether Kennedy sent, and Specter received, a letter, dated Dec. 22, about such a subpoena. Specter and Kennedy are basically shouting at each other, and Specter is pissed.

Round 2: Fight! Sen. Specter

As the confirmation hearings progress, the mood of the conference room has certainly relaxed. People joke much more, for one thing. Just before the 11:20 break, Specter questioned Alito on TV coverage in the Supreme Court, urging Alito, but comically, to answer very carefully. It's wonderfully human, how quickly people adjust to solemnity and gravity, how they grow accustomed to their surroundings. Before the hearings began this morning, you could even see it in Alito's family. No longer were they stiff, silent, out of place. It's day 3! They could come in smiling, talking, laughing.

Great question, Senator Brownback: What are Congress's powers to regulate the Supreme Court's jurisdiction based on the exception clause (Article III: Section ii, of the Constitution)? More broadly, what checks the power of the Court besides judicial restraint? Alito clarified that Congress can certainly determine the Court's appellate power, but he also remarked that it was unclear whether Congress might Constitutionally limit the Court's jurisdiction over a particular issue.

Senator Sam Brownback (R - Kansas)

Senator Brownback opened by quoting a number of legal scholars on the weakness of the Roe opinion. Not necessarily the weakness of the decision, mind you; not necessarily the outcome. But if you have ever read Roe v. Wade (and I ran a less on it in a Critical Thinking class a few years ago, when I was teaching high school), you know that much of its reasoning is unsound and much of science is bad. Frankly, Roe v. Wade needs to be revisited. Wouldn't it be nice to have abortion rights coherently grounded?

Alito Confirmation Hearings (Day 3)

Well, I'm back in front of the computer to watch the continuation of the first round questioning. Senator Dick Durbin (D - Illinois) opens the day, asking about Griswold (and Brown v. Board of Ed., though less relevantly) trying to assure himself that the strength of such cases remains secure despite the fact that they don't rely upon explicit language in the constitution. Haha: the drift is towards Roe v. Wade, of course, and Alito's refusal to say, straight up, that there is an established Constitutional right to choose an abortion.

Alito responds by saying that Brown isn't relevant as a non-text-based (my phrase) ruling, and he says the issue in Griswold, he says, has been pinned to due process, and it's also been settled. But, he implies, because there is not so much consensus on abortion (and because Roe is such a crappy opinion), that it's establishment of a right to an abortion is less clearly Constitutional and correct.

Good luck pushing, Senator Durbin. You aren't going to get what you want, and Alito looks completely comfortable in his response, which is, frankly, a good one.

I think that the public and the Congress should recognize more clearly that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would remain legal in many states, that it would only open up the rights of the states to regulate it to a greater degree. I suspect there would almost certainly remain a right to abortions in cases of great danger to the mother's health. Am I crazy to think that the abortion issue is actually overblown?

Senator John Cornyn (R - Texas)

Finally a useful redirect on stare. It seems pretty clear to me that Alito's statement, that yes sometimes (an interpretation of) the Constitution itself outweighs stare, should NOT be construed as evidence that the judge would likely overturn Roe v. Wade in a direct challenge. Alito isn't specific about the types of privacy he believes the Constitution protects, but he is clear about the force of that protection, and I think he takes the protection to apply in a serious manner to the issues around abortion. He'll weigh cases every bit as carefully as he promises.

As for Cornyn, he looks like a real statesman compared to Schumer, though I had no such favorable impression of him yesterday. I wonder: Will I vote for Schumer when he's up for re-election? Well, yes, probably, but I really dislike him right now.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D - New York)

What an asshole! He kept asking Alito whether he still believed, as he once said he did, that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. His "final" comment was to say, "We can only expect that with all that you've said about stare decisis you will still probably vote to overrule Roe v. Wade." He tried to yield back his time, but Alito responded, and then Schumer got into it again. He really, really wants the last word, and he's not being reasonable. I'm unimpressed. Or rather, I'm unfavourably impressed.

And I am impressed by Alito's composure, in the face of Schumer's interrupting him.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R - S. Carolina)

Graham is really badgering Alito over the judiciary's role in determining the fate of military detainees and enemy combatatants. It's a bit weird. He's asking rhetorical questions like, "Who would be better at determining the threat level and intelligence value of a prisoner, the military or the courts?" and "We aren't in the habit, are we, of releasing our enemies before a conflict's over, are we? We don't let our prisoners of war sue us, would we? Of course not, because the result would be chaos!"

He also asked Alito, in a shift of gears, "Are you a strict constructionist?"

After a bit of haggling over what that might mean, with Graham offering that a strict constructionist doesn't make things up, he did get Alito to respond with a simple conditional:

"If a strict constructionist is someone who doesn't make things up, then I'm a strict constructionist."

Nice work, Senator Graham.

A Touch of Dull

I admit I'm becoming a big numb to these proceedings, though I'm trying to keep my ears open. Senator Herb Kohl (D - Wisconsin) hit again and again on 1985 statements by Alito. They talked about one person one vote and census. They talked about employee sick leave issues as well. I can't say terribly much more.

Now we're into the questioning of Mike DeWine (R - Ohio). At the moment, DeWine is lecturing Alito on the weaknesses of Roe, essentially arguing that it's being affirmed many times should not be considered a strengthened precedent even though it's been reaffirmed in various ways many times. But he's speaking in terms of "super precedent," a term introduced by Arlen Specter, and explicitly rejected by Alito.

Senator Jon Kyl (R - Arizona)

Sentor Kyl got 10 minutes of questions in before the lunch break (1 PM - 2:15) and picked up his balance of 20 afterwards. In the first 10 minutes, Kyl asked Alito why he wanted to serve on the U.S. Supreme court, and refered to Bork's unsatisfactory reply to just that question. Alito said he thought he could serve the country in a very important, however limited, role. Then Kyl asked about the role of foreign law in U.S. courts, to which Alito replied that foreign law is sometimes called for in contract disputes, and in interpretation of international treaties (though by no means binding there), but not helpful in interpreting the United States Constitution. I agree in principle, but the Constitution includes phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" which, it seems to me, have a universal scope, and with respect to which it might well be worth citing foreign laws, standards, and interpretations.

The last 20 minutes of Kyl's questioning focussed on redirect, visiting cases where Alito ruled in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, and concluding with a discussion of gun laws and the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

Senator Biden (D - Delaware)

Biden introduced his questions by stressing that he was approaching Alito specifically as a replacement on the bench of Sandra Day O'Connor. "You are the fulcrum," he said to Judge Alito, and he was at pains to impress this fact upon the judge.

The bulk of his questioning was on the dangers of discrimination. He was explicit about his confidence that Alito opposes discrimination in every form, but he expressed his trouble with the outcomes that Alito's rulings and opinions might bring about. "Discrimination has become very, very sophisticated," said Biden.

Biden pressed Alito on a case where Alito would have denied a jury trial to a woman who brought a discrimination suit. (I think the case is Sheridan.) They clearly disagreed in their interpretation of the facts, but Alito explained that he was also employing a different test from the other 10 judges on the panel, which test was in fact later endorsed by O'Connor in a similar Supreme Court. Alito said that there seemed to be no way that any reasonable jury could find proof of discrimination.

One thing that seems clear to me is that the Dems. are pressing Alito on many cases where he was in the minority, where he disagrees with other judges on substantive issues. What I want to know is, Does Alito wind up in the minority more often than the average judge? Is the lone dissenter more often? Some of his minority opinions do seem a bit weird, although in each of them discussed so far in the hearings I have been fairly sympathetic to his reasoning. The Republican Sentators tend to revisit the issues that the Dems raise, like a re-direct after cross-examination, and they show convincingly (though to my mind superfluously) that Alito is perfectly capable of finding in favor of, for example, plaintifs in discrimination cases.

Overall, I found Biden incredibly respectful and totally clear on what he wanted to accomplish with his questioning, more so than anyone else on the committee so far. He concluded by saying that he was worried about many of Alito's decision's outcomes, and said he would follow up in his second round of questions by continuing to talk about a "real world effects test" for Alito's record.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R - Iowa)

Here's another obvious supporter of Alito. He's opening basically with a statement of praise, not with a question at all.

Kennedy has taken up the question of Presidential signing statements, which Alito advocated when working for the Reagan Administration. Alito responds by saying that in interpreting a statute he start with the text of the statute, setting aside at first both Congressional and Presidential intent. But he also says, "It'll all need to be explored." He thinks the Court has not yet, but will have to, deal theoretically with the weight (if any) of a Presidential interpretation of statute.

The next question turns to "Unitary Executive Power." Alito says it's a question of who gets to weild executive power, but not about the extent of that power. It seems to me that there's an issue of how much authority the President can weild over "independent agencies," which have powers delegated to them by Congressional statute. I don't have a full handle on this, however.

Senator Kennedy (D - MA) Interrogates

I missed the first half, plus, of Kennedy's questioning. Had to run some errands. Now it seems to me that Kennedy in fact wants to debate substative constitutional issues with Alito, esp. 4th Ammendment rights. The question in this case, in fact, is fascinating. The question isn't whether the search warrant included the affidavit. The question is whether it was included with respect to probable cause only or with the aim of allowing searches of other people on the property. This back and forth is actually illuminating the case for me. The question of principle is how strict a reading one ought to give a search warrant in order to protect 4th Ammendment rights. Alito says he read the warrant in a "common sense" way.

Avoiding Constitutional Judgements

Now this is interesting. Alito is a proponent of avoiding Constitutional decisions wherever it is possible to rule based upon statute, because the Constitutional decision has a permanence that a statutory decision doesn't. The statute-based decision allows remedy through new legislation, and presumably it's also easier to overturn if there's a later sense of some error.

This makes good sense to me. Who can tell me whether it's a common judicial principle?

I wonder whether Alito, or any nominee in a similar position, finds the kind of "helpful questioning" that Sen. Hatch is following helpful at all. It strikes me as rather condescending, in fact, not to mention that it reads as being all for show; and I would think that a nominee such as Alito would be at pains in these hearings to appear genuine.

It looks like Hatch is trying to use all his time to "clear up" various issues/objections to Alito. He's simply opening the door for Alito to address things, like the CAP affair, and now the Vanguard Conflict of Interest. Apparently the bureaucracy of recusal notions is different when a client is represented by a lawyer than when a client represents himself (Pro Se).

Boring...

Now Leahy is after Alito for putting CAP (Concered Alumni of Princeton) on his resume in a 1985 job application. CAP was objecting to their being too many women and minorities at Princeton. By '85, Bill Frist and Bill Bradley had both resigned from it, on the grounds that it was pretty horrible. Alito replies that he was not active, that he can't recall his motivation for joining the group. He also says he was an ROTC member at Princeton and that he was upset when Princeton tossed ROTC off campus. He thinks he probably joined with the idea that the group trying to bring back a Princeton of yore would be in favor of bringing ROTC back to campus.

Leahy's time ended on the question, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R - Utah) took over, asking Alito easy, leading questions: "Judge Alito, are you in favor of women and minorities getting a college education?"

Alito: "Why, yes, Senator."

Sen. Hatch: "Well, I thought that was the answer you would give."

Alito also has a good sense of humor: "And let me assure you, Senator, that during my college years I came very much to appreciate the co-educational experience at Princeton."

Leahy going after the Alito on Presidental perrogative to authorize torture and on FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Response, "The president has to comply with statutes that Congress passes." But he won't say more. He says he needs to know specifics of a case and needs to hear a theory presented by the representatives of the Administration. I think Leahy is making himself look a bit stupid.

Leahy: "I want to make sure the courts will protect people's 4th Ammendment rights! Shouldn't people have their day in court?"

Alito: "Of course they should have their day in court. And yes, 4th Ammendment rights are terribly important."

Well, yes. What more does Leahy want Alito to say?

Second half-hour belongs to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D - VT). He opens with a practical approach to presidential signing statements and their role in interpreting a statue.

Right, so each senator gets just a certain amount of time in each round of questioning, and this opening 30 minutes belonged to Specter as chairman of the committee. We're not done with these questions, obviously.

Alito Hearings (cont.)

Wow. I mean, not that I expected anything else, but first question, and we're right into abortion and privacy, Sen. Specter (R - PA) leading leading the way. And he hopes to move on to Presidential power within the half hour, and Congressional power after that?? Seems ambitious.

The Canon PowerShot A520

It looks good, anyhow.

Wish List

I'm in the hunt for a digital camera, mostly so that I can easily get high quality images for this very blog. I don't have words every day, maybe, but I think shifting towards photobloggery (especially after visiting Something Beautiful, by G.) might both keep me interested in updating and make me more attentive to visuals.

It's pretty rare that I want to own particular material things. A while ago I made myself a little wishlist, and it looked like this:

Things I want:

TECHNOLOGY

• A 200 Gb drive for video work
• A 3.5 + megapixel digital camera
• An iPod

CLOTHING

• A pair of slippers for the winter
• Nice pajamas for winter
• Cargo pants that fit.

OBJECTS

• A small, battery powered amp for traveling w/ my guitar.
• A tent.
• A winter-rated sleeping bag.

Well, I've got the iPod, and pajamas, and a tent, and I no longer want a traveling amp. The digital camera I'll have quite shortly (probably the Canon PowerShot A520). Isn't there anything else? I'm surprised and pleased to find my wishlist so short. There'd probably be no point in making one a permanent part of website.

However tempting an option that is.

Judge Alito Himself

Judge Alito strikes me as a mensch. He was nervous, but composed, and he spoke without once consulting his notes. He addressed the committee earnestly, and he focussed on a judge's obligation to confirm the rule of law. A strong opening on his part. Can't wait to see what answers tomorrow's questions bring.

Senator Durbin (D-Illinois)

I like the Senator Durbin. His opening remarks were among the most human, and he clearly engaged Judge Alito as he spoke (totally unlike Sen. Schumer (D-New York).

Chuck Schumer (D-New York)

Sen. Charles Schumer, of my own state, is following Sen. Graham. He's sharp and articulate, and he has his eyes on his paper instead of on Alito. I can tell someone else wrote his speech. He's hostile in understated and partly unconvincing manner. I can't wait to see him in extemporaneous speech.

Senator Graham (R-S. Carolina)

Watching the opening statements of the Alito confirmation hearing right now. Sen. Graham seems strangely impassioned, but in a way that actually seems to hop from issue to issue. I think he's not really talking especially to Alito so much as addressing the nation while he knows that there is a big audience. (How big?) An admirable bit of opportunism.

Alito Hearings

It's true that I'm sleepless and wired, but I am pretty excited, and concerned, about the beginning of Alito's confirmation hearings before the United States Senate. I was pleased to discover that C-SPAN webcasts its three video channels and it's radio programming. To watch the confirmation hearings (beginning at noon) live, click here.

Go Pats!

Here's a shout to the New England Patriots, who defeated Jacksonville convincingly in their first playoff game of the year. I don't think any reasonable New England fan thought that the Patriots were going to be a serious playoff team; but, as in past years, they have gelled as the season progressed. They played fierce defense from the get-go, and I wouldn't count them out against any team in the league. They've fanned a fanciful spark of hope into something like a flame.

--That said, why on Earth didn't Jacksonville test New England's deep pass defense early in the game? It's been their Achilles heel all season.

Stylin'

It's a bit sick how many of the last 60 hours I've spent reworking the designs of this blog and my homepage, but I'm pleased with the results. You never know, putting all that time in might inspire me to update regularly.