Blog

Wow, Egpyt is flying through their constitutional ratification process. From CNN:

Egypt’s ruling military leadership will announce Wednesday a constitutional declaration that will operate as a working constitution in the current political transitional period, state-run news media MENA reported.

This new working constitution will be in effect until a new one is drafted and approved.

And what is in this Constitution?

The constitutional declaration, which will override the current 1971 constitution, will define the powers of the executive and judicial branches as well as institute laws to govern the presidential and parliamentarian election processes.

The declaration is also expected to include articles about citizens’ rights and freedoms.

See here and here for my previous posts on the Egyptian Constitution.

Update: While I am blogging about Egypt, I may as well include this gorgeous satellite photograph of the Middle East. It looks so peaceful from up there.

I read an earlier draft of Cain as His Brother’s Keeper: Property Rights and Christian Ethics in Locke’s Two Treatises of Government by Steven Menashi and really enjoyed it. I am glad to see Steven placed it in the Seton Hall Law Review. It’s a Jersey thing. Here is the abstract:

Those scholars who regard Locke’s theory of property as a reflection of conventional Christian views pay insufficient attention to the deliberate rhetorical method of his Two Treatises of Government. Close attention to the text reveals profound criticisms of prevailing Christian doctrine. In fact, Locke’s theory of property forms the core of a moral theory that aims to supplant traditional religious teaching with an ethic of human industry and individual autonomy. Understanding Locke’s intention illuminates the foundations of American constitutionalism and of modern liberalism.

Sign up today!

I am currently co-authoring an article with Adam Aft and Corey Carpenter, titled “FantasySCOTUS: Crowdsourcing A Prediction Market for the Supreme Court.” This piece looks at the accuracy of predictions of FantasySCOTUS during the October 2009 term. I will post more of the article in due time. For now, here is the introduction, where we draw several parallels between following the Supreme and following professional supports:

In many respects, following the Supreme Court of the United States mirrors following professional sports. Senate confirmation hearings, much like the workouts that precede entry-level drafts or exhibition games , permit fans to learn about the qualities and particulars of a candidate—whether a Justice-to-be, or an aspiring athlete. In fact, during the lead-up to a nomination, Court experts rank the nominees on the “short list” in the same way that sports writers rank who will be the first pick in the draft. The Supreme Court term, which begins the first Monday in October and historically concludes the last week in June roughly approximates the NBA and NHL seasons. Through granting writs of certiorari, the Court sets its own calendar for oral arguments, in the same way that professional sports leagues release team schedules. The most significant cases, or games, are sprinkled throughout the term, or season. The oral arguments, much like practices or scrimmages before the big game, give fans an insight into the strategies, strengths, and weaknesses of the various portions of the team—the Justices often signal their views through questions and comments.

Following the oral arguments, legal nerds speculate about the outcome of the case, and how the nine Justices will vote, much like sports nuts assess how the team performed during practice, and which player will shine. Not unlike most sports, the biggest and most important issues are resolved at the end of the season—the Supreme Court historically resolves the most controversial cases during the last week of the term. June is playoff time at the Supreme Court. During the hand-down of the opinion, the equivalent of game day at One First Street, the issue is resolved, and the case is (usually) decided. Emerging from behind the crimson curtains at the marble palace and majestically approaching the bench, the Justices, like athletes emerging from the tunnel at the stadium and trotting towards the sideline, are the superstars of their courts.

Sports fans, no longer content to simply watch games at home, have taken to the Internet and joined fantasy leagues. Players in these leagues—which have exploded in popularity in recent years —are rewarded for accurately predicting how their players and teams will perform. With all of the parallels between professional sport watching and SCOTUS-watching, why not create a fantasy league for the Supreme Court? Enter FantasySCOTUS.net, the Internet’s Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League from the Harlan Institute. With 8,000 members and rising, CNN.com declared FantasySCOTUS the “hottest new fantasy-league game.” The Legal Blog Watch deemed FantasySCOTUS the “new gold standard in Supreme Court geekery.” Justice Breyer praised FantasySCOTUS for making the public more interested in the Supreme Court Beyond serving as a cool forum for Court nerds to brag about their Supreme Court soothsaying abilities, and tapping into tapping into the fervor and fascination of sports fans following their favorite teams, FantasySCOTUS is the first crowdsourced prediction market for jurisprudential speculation.

There was a slightly awkward exchange in U.S. v. Fowler. Justice Sotomayor asked a question that implicated the performance of the trial lawyer. The attorney arguing at the Supreme Court blamed the trial attorney–except they were one in the same.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I have one last one, the plain error question. Neither your brief — I think2you’re taking the position that simply because we3granted cert, we’ve accepted there’s a plain error; is that your position? Because you haven’t really defendedagainst a finding of plain error.

MR. CRAWFORD: Well, the trial lawyer did a7poor job in articulating the reasons for the judgment of acquittal.

JUSTICE BREYER: I take it you were not the trial lawyer?

MR. CRAWFORD: Well, unfortunately, Judge, I was. So, that’s why I

JUSTICE BREYER: Oh, you were?(Laughter.)

MR. CRAWFORD: Did a poor job of articulating the judgment of — the judgment at acquittal time, the reasons that the court should grant it and quite frankly did disservice to the district court judge, who we need to help out more.

In other words, my bad. Also, it is Justice Breyer, not Judge Breyer. (definitely check out this Green Bag article about the judge/justice divide).

Justice Breyer later bailed him out:

JUSTICE BREYER: Anyway, you’ve made a fine argument here, even if you didn’t make it

(Laughter.)

MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, sir. I’ll do better next time.