Monday, May 29, 2006

Jesus as Defense Attorney

I've long been struck by an image of Jesus that doesn't seem to be talked about very often (no, not Jesus as mother hen) -- Jesus as defense attorney. Jesus is depicted as having ascended to heaven to plead our case before God, and is often described as our advocate. And Satan, of course, is often portrayed as our prosecuting attorney. Now, as my friend S pointed out, we could also view the Holy Spirit as our attorney, since he's described as our counselor. But I think it's a better analogy to think of the Holy Spirit as the victim's advocate. He's the one that helps us through the trial, let's us know how it's going, that sort of thing. Of course, this points to something interesting, though scarcely unknown -- we are both victim and defendant.

I doubt this idea will strike many as especially new or original, though hopefully it's interesting. It's not exactly a new picture of Christ. But it might be interesting to use this image to think of defense and prosecuting attorneys in a different way. Prosecutors like to think of themselves as knights on white horses, upholding justice and the law. But it might be a useful dose of humility to remember that, in the heavens, it is the devil who is the prosecutor.

Friday, May 19, 2006

Interstate Commerce

Since I've been a little more than a bit lazy about blogging this past week (just started my internship), I thought I'd post this little fun tidbit from Law & Alcoholism, for those of you who don't read it. (And for those of you who don't read it, I can whole heartedly recommend it, unless you dislike strong language.)

Rtd.
– This signal indicates that the cited authority is retarded, whether in reasoning, outcome, or that someone must have bashed the author in the head with a fucking brick. This signal, of course, may be used in conjunction with other signals. An explanatory parenthetical might also be helpful to explain the authority’s relevance.

Example: “During the FDR years, the Court brutally raped the Commerce Clause with an cast-iron dildo. E.g., rtd., Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (farmer growing wheat for own consumption is “interstate commerce”).

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Even the Wicked . . .

So, there was an ending line on this night's Law and Order that caught my attention; this is probably another one of the reasons I like the show. It's not merely an opportunity to muse about human venality, but also a show which shows some appreciation for the desire for grace. (And this probably isn't the last time I'll be blogging about Law and Order.)

The line in its full reads "Even the wicked get worse than they deserve." The plot of this particular episode revolves around a fallen judge. After a bitter divorce, in which she ends up essentially losing her shirt, she becomes bitter about having to preside over these cases in which rich bastards compete over $50,000 this and $100,000 that. So she ends up taking bribes to decide cases. She believes that she's not really doing anything really bad, because she believes she's still considering the 'best interest of the child'. But it turns out that she has decided cases against the best interest of the child, in her increasing habitual venality. (So this connects with my earlier post about good people doing bad things, too.) Oh, and she ends up committing murder. Accidentally.

It's clear from the episode that Branch at one time thought highly of her. At one point he says that she was the best student he ever had, and he clearly has trouble believing that she's done what she's done, based on what he's known of her in the past. But what brings this though beyond the mere 'good people doing bad things' type of thought is that she had reasons for doing what she did. Not reasons that would justify it, to be sure, but she had reasons. She wasn't merely an evil woman, trying to snag an extra buck. She was given the test of despair, but failed. And there aren't many people who have even taken that test. (It might be worth noting, in connection with a recent post, that Charlotte Simmons took that same test, and also failed, though in a different way.) It's at least clear that her failing is a merely human failing, and not anything worse.

This is not to say, of course, that we should condone her failings, excuse them in some way. This is merely to indicate that our moral censure should probably something less than our legal censure. To some extent, we all face that Test of Despair, and few if any of us pass that Test with straight As. This might well be especially relevant to future prosecuting attorneys -- on the one hand, to remind us that, however we might feel about someone's actions morally, we're compelled to prosecute them according to the law, but also that, however someone appears legally, that's not necessarily how they appear morally. They're two separate categories.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Athens, Jerusalem, or Washington?

Well, I was never happy with the old title of the blog (Notes from Under the Law School). It was an attempted reference to Dostoyevsky's "Notes from Underground," but it was really way too strained to work. I'm not suggesting that this be some sort of final name, but I like it at least a little bit better than the old title. I will, of course, take suggestions.

The name is, of course, a reference to the old debate about Athens vs. Jerusalem -- that is, philosophy vs. religion. I chose Washington to refer to the law. I figure, it's either Washington or Rome. For someone hoping to practice in the US, there's your two sources of law right there.

I am Charlotte Simmons

So, I just finished my first book of Tom Wolfe's, and I have to say, I really enjoyed it. It was generally well paced, and the characterization was amazing. Perhaps I'm assuming too much regarding Wolfe's knowledge of philosophy, but the way he had Coach misapplying "mens sana in corpore sano" (and citing it as Greek!), and when he had Socrates committing suicide, the way this shows Coach to be a person with no understanding of the life of the mind or philosophy was spectacular. I also particularly enjoyed his skewering of the self-declared intellectuals (Adam Gellin and posse), showing them to be the vapid pseudo-intellectuals those sort of people usually are. Mostly, I liked the way that, although none of the characters are completely sympathetic, (arguably) none of them are unsympathetic either (with the possible exception of Coach and Hoyt).

This is not to say that the book was perfect, though. It did get preachy at times, and I suspect it could have been a bit shorter. Overall, though, I'd heartily recommend it, and I'm looking forward to checking out some more of Wolfe's writing.

Oh, and can I add, Quat is such a great name for that character!

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Moussaoui not to receive death penalty

In the news yesterday, and some today, is the jury's verdict in the sentencing phase of Moussaoui's trial -- life in prison. From everything I've heard, this is probably the right decision from a merely legal viewpoint. But, of course, this trial was about more than the law, it was also about politics, and so some commentators have been commenting on how this reflects on the "war on terror". (Rant about the "war on terror" is forthcoming.) My thoughts, not having really followed the trial, is that to the extent this reflects badly on any aspect of the war on terror, it reflects badly on how Bush has chosen to prosecute this 'war'. (Sorry about the pun.) But Crime and Federalism has a post arguing that this is a victory in the war as such, because it is a victory of the rule of law against fear and hatred. Here's the link.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Hopefully something will rub off...

Well, I went to meet J. Scalia today, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Even if you happen to disagree with him, he's well worth listening to if you ever get a chance to hear him speak. A very amiable guy. Oh, and I got to shake his hand! More on this later, once I'm actually done with finals...