The Well FED Society

On the Protocols of Academic Society

2004-11-11T13:33:00.000-05:00

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a surprisingly good article titled Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual

Read it.

Some of the article seems strangely similar to things we've seen at UB.

(Hat tip to InstaPundit.)

Panel Discussion or Propaganda…

2004-10-22T09:53:00.000-04:00

The following is the statement that the UBFS issued and posted, as a full-size poster, on the door to the auditorium of the one-sided homeland security "panel discussion" mentioned previously

Panel Discussion or Propaganda…
Can you tell the difference?
Professor Tiefer can’t.
Or, if he can, he won’t tell you.

The UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE FEDERALIST SOCIETY takes exception to this “panel” discussion because there appears to be no balance of opinion.

IF Prof. Tiefer attempted to obtain one or more conservative experts on homeland security he was unsuccessful. Perhaps that’s because he did not contact either conservative student organization (the UB Federalist Society or the UB Republican Caucus) for assistance in obtaining experts who would present arguments in favor of the policies of the current administration.

The UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE FEDERALIST SOCIETY fiercely supports Prof. Tiefer’s right to have and express his opinion on this and every other issue, however, we see the description of this event as a “Panel Discussion” to be intellectually dishonest, and in opposition to the fundamental purpose of public universities and the nature of education.

And to the question of “Are We Safer?” - The answer is YES! Even small children learn, eventually, that closing one’s eyes does not make unpleasant reality disappear.

AIDS - is it a political issue or a public health issue?

2004-10-15T17:39:00.000-04:00

Those of use in Maryland, and especially those of us at UB know of William Donald (Willie-Don) Schaefer, former Governor of Maryland, former Mayor of Baltimore, and current State Comptroller.

Blair Lee of the Lee Development Group has written a very interesting article about one of Willie-Don's recent outbursts... Schaefertime in Maryland

Mr. Schaefer's idea is, basically, to quit treating AIDS as a political issue and treat it as a deadly communicable disease.

I'm not one to favor governmental invasions of privacy. Then again, nobody really argues that the existence of the CDC is way beyond the constitutional mandate of "promoting the general welfare." Also, this is a state official, and states are allowed to go deeper into peoples lives, generally (or ideally) than the Federal government is supposed to go.

So, what do you think... Is it time to treat AIDS and HIV infection as a disease from which unsuspecting people should be afforded some protection? Sounds like a policy issue worth discussing...

Public Schools - War on Poverty or War on the Poor?

2004-10-13T11:03:00.000-04:00

Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University has been a consistent and thoughtful critic of public education, especially of the public schools as they (dis)serve minority students.

Here's his latest column: School violence toleration

The anecdotes Professor Williams uses lead the reader to the natural conclusion that, although we're constantly told that "Education" is the way out of poverty and social inequity, and therefore that public schools are doing a vital and massive proportion of the substantive work in the "War on Poverty," the truth of the matter is that public schools are making the problems worse.

I agree that "Education," real education, can enable students, regardless of the socio-economic background from which they come, to open the doors of opportunity. That said, the simple fact that, conceptually, "education" holds that potential does not imply that public schools are accomplishing much or anything in terms of realizing that potential.

So, what's the solution? (Craig, I'm expecting useful comments and or subsequent posts on this topic from you.)

Before that, where, exactly, is the problem? Is it in the schools, the children, the teachers, the parents, the neighborhoods, the education administration, or perhaps the office of the President of the United States?

In my humble opinion, no one of the potential scape-goats deserves all of the blame. I would suggest that the President, least of all, deserves blame, but an argument could be made that national policy, which the President does establish, has an impact, so I'll say that a smidgen of blame can be assigned all the way up to the top.

It's instructive, of course, that despite the miserable state and condition of inner city schools, some children from horrible households do succeed well. That would imply to someone doing a "scientific" analysis of the situation that the strongest "control" mechanism is the student himself (or herself). That makes sense, since education really happens between the ears of the individual students. Controls over the second and third (or higher order) derivatives are less effective, directly, on the result, but can be highly effective on the overall trends.

[NOTE: For the non-scientist or engineer reader, I apologize, but controls engineering is my background, so that's how I look at problems that need to be solved.]

Higher-order controls can be over or under done if their impact is not measured correctly. In this instance, "higher-order" refers to the aspects of the problem that are relevant, generally, but not directly, such as parental involvement, school administration, etc. From a public-policy perspective, the only realm that is in any way appropriate for government meddling is in (some of) these higher-order areas.

What Professor Williams notes is the counter-intuitive response of a school-system to parental involvement in the educational process which was in response to peer/societal circumstances which the parent found unacceptable, but which are the collective result of parental abdication and governmental mis-management.

Two truisms that, I think, are useful to understanding this problem are:
1. Systems always perform as designed (but that's not necessarily what was desired) and
2. People always tend to perform towards their metrics.

Looking at the current state and condition of public schools, especially urban public schools, as a "system," one must ask, "If this is how the system is performing, what was the actual design objective?" Do public schools exist to provide opportunity to all? That's not what they're doing, so, although that might have been the desire of the customer (the public), it's not the design of the system that has been delivered.

What does the public school system, especially in urban settings, produce? Poorly educated and poorly socialized additions to society. That and a nominal justification for more governmental funds and political power. The public school system perpetuates the conditions that were the justification for it's existence. Inequality of educational result is the reason we have a government-run school system and why we submit to being taxed to support it. Of course, the public doesn't like that problem... It's not what the customer desired... We wanted a solution, and not a perpetuation of the problem.

It's my thesis that public schools, by design (though not by desire), assault the poor to justify demands for expansion. The system exists for self-perpetuation, growth, and the enrichment of those who run the system. Those who run the system achieve greater compensation through the growth of the system. If your importance and therefore your compensation increases with the expansion of educational programs, then the obvious tactic to increase compensation is to demonstrate a "need" for the additional programs.

My conclusion, for what it's worth, is that to fix the problem, the customer has to reject the current product. In the '70s when gas prices spiked, small car sales shot up, but the "big three" continued to manufacture large inefficient automobiles. When the customer-base rejected the product, they re-aligned (somewhat) and began to produce products that the customers wanted to buy. The analogy with public schools is weak because public schools are a virtual monopoly. Without competition, an organization's systematic design goals cannot be easily modified to match the customers' desires.

Because, in all cases, the basic motivation of management is the same, i.e. personal enrichment(monetary and social/political gain), the metric by which the management goal is achieved must be considered. In a competitive environment, enrichment comes through efficiency and expansion of market-share. Where the industry is a de facto monopoly, the industry can choose to improve it's performance according to customer standards, but that won't expand it's market share, or, more likely, it can abuse and fleece it's customers. The objective of the monopolistic systematic design of our public schools must be deemed to be to attack the weak in order to justify governmental expansion of the public schools.

Long story short... Education is a major front in the War on Poverty, but Public Schools are the enemy because they are, by design, waging a War on the Poor.

Chirac: Save the environment, speak French!

2004-10-08T10:41:00.000-04:00

Matt Drudge has this article about some of Jacques Chirac's statements against the American culture and English language.

I loved this statement:

This, he said, would lead to a "general world sub-culture" based around the English language, which would be "a real ecological catastrophe".

I was never so proud to be an English-speaking American than right at this moment knowing that my existence and the language I speak annoys Jacques Chirac.

How does this relate to public policy? It goes to the question of whether or not we should even consider France an ally... Here's some more damning informaiton...

Comments? (English only, please.)

If it's important at UB, non-liberals need not apply

2004-10-07T09:16:00.000-04:00

You may not have heard, the University of Baltimore School of Law is sponsoring a panel discussion on homeland security, entitled 'Are We Safer?'

That's nice.

Read the description... Notice that it's the LAW SCHOOL, and not any student group sponsoring this event. Notice that Dean Holmes will be "moderating" the discussion. Why they need a moderator, I haven't a clue, since ALL of the speakers come from the same political/philosophical camp!

As you know, the Federalist Society, the UBFS, and this site are all non-partisan. This, of course, does NOT mean that we are oblivious to politics and the philosophies that motivate political actors. To the contrary, the study of public policy (our main reason for existing) is a study of precisely that.

Therefore, I am, and I hope you are too, furious at the school for using state and federal funds to present a leftist propaganda-fest and calling it a "panel discussion." It's NOT.

I can assure you that no one from the law school or the Dean's office contacted either the UBFS or the other prominent conservative organization at UB. This is shameful.

The reason I'm posting this for you, my dear readers, is because I think that it's our duty to raise the level of discourse on campus. The diversity that counts is that of ideas, because only by the presentation and subsequent competition of ideas will the best policies rise and become refined.

Please stand with me and contact the University to let the powers that be know that you're interested in this important topic, and wonder if they intend to present a panel with more than one perspective, and if so, who will present an alternative viewpoint.

Malpractice panel Discussion - post-mortem

2004-10-01T09:27:00.000-04:00

I don't have the time to go into a full discussion of last night's (Sept 30, 2004) event. I tried to take reasonably good notes of the discussion from each of the speakers, and I'll try to reconstruct my impressions when I continue this post later on.

My first impressions are as follows:

1. The Maryland Trial Lawyers' Association should be ashamed of itself. Understandably, they stand to lose a great deal if meaningful reform takes place, but their response to the invitation sent to them from the Federalist Society was an exceptionally childish letter.

2. The panelists who showed up were truly knowledgeable in their respective areas, and more than that, they were sincere in their conviction that the current situation is a crisis and meaningful steps need to be taken to prevent this crisis from turning into a catastrophe.

Dr. Sobel made an impact unlike the other speakers because he didn't come in as a lawyer or a politician. He was a learned man who is fighting the fight to be able to practice medicine, and the system (in a global sense) is just not supporting him and the rest of the physicians. He provided the statistics and perspective that drove home the point that this issue is actually a crisis, and not just hype from people who don't like the defenders of the little guy, the noble "Trial Lawyer."

As I said, I'll fill in more later, but I want to leave you with a few thoughts. First, one problem is that nobody knows what the actual solution needs to be, and nobody really complained about the "caps" issues. Second, the crisis will resolve itself one way or another. If the problem isn't addressed politically, soon, it will resolve itself by depleting the available medical resources, and healthcare access will evaporate. Third, no one camp is 100% to blame, and maybe that's why a solution is so hard to agree upon. Fourth (and finally for now), the medical liability system does not currently serve its purported purpose. One thing that I think a representative of the Trial Lawyers could have constructively added to the discussion is that until there are systematic changes, lawyers really need to act in much the way that they currently do, because to not seek the best result for your client is legal malpractice (see Section 2 of the Preable), and although this is detrimental to society, a lawyer is not allowed to abandon his client's interests in favor of some societal goal. It's basically a "game theory" type of situation where all the players would do well if all of the players behaved, but if any of the players act selfishly, the selfish actors will reap huge rewards individually, even though the collective is injured.

To be continued...
(...continued)
The first panelist to speak was Al Redmer. As noted below, he's the current Maryland Insurance Commissioner. He's also a former delegate to the Maryland General Assembly. The first thing that he said which was noteworthy, IMHO, was that the med-mal issue is more of a political issue than a public policy one. Also, it doesn't appear that the people of the state are more litigious than before, because the number of claims being made is approximately the same as it has been for some time, but rather, the pain is coming from the fact that the pay-outs have increased substantially, and the problem is in the "economic damages." Towards the end of his portion of the discussion, he rattled off several ideas including annuitizing the pay-outs, or creating a "patient compensation pool."

I like the idea of annuitized payents because it ties the award to the injury, but I don't particularly like the idea of a patient compensation pool. It seems like a way to pay people for bad luck rather than to compensate them for injury suffered as a result of someone else's negligence.

Dr. Sobel was the second panelist to speak. I discussed a little of his presentation above, and alluded to some statistics: Right now, in the state of Maryland there are about 750 Ob-Gyn physicians, but only about 500 of them are currently practicing Ob-Gyn. Shock-trauma centers are not economically viable because they are required by law to take whoever comes to them regardless of ability to pay, and so the ones that are open, generally are receiving direct governmental support. One of the most interesting facts that he presented, or at least I thought it was interesting, was that there are NO neuro-surgeons in the Mississippi Delta region from Memphis to New Orleans.

Another fact he mentioned was that defensive medicine (tests not really indicated, but ordered just to make sure that he can say he did order every reasonable test if he does get sued) is currently estimated to cost the US economy between $70 and $100 Billion.

Walter Olson spoke next. He presented more details of the excesses in the med-mal plaintiff's bar, which I suppose if somebody wants, I can post in greater depth at another time. What stood out about Mr. Olson's discussion was that he presented some realistically helpful ideas.

Certificates of Merit. If there were some way to guarantee that a med-mal case actually had some merit, before it actually got filed, it might reduce the number of suits. Of course some safe-guards against "jukebox" doctors (Doctors who will sing whatever tune you ask, if you pay them.)
Daubert. This is the expert/scientific evidence standard used in federal cases. This is probably the easiest solution that could provide some quick results.
Court Appointed Experts. Right now, jurors who are generally unable to distinguish good science (medicine) from bad are treated to a "battle of experts." that, of course, isn't designed to enlighten the jurors, but to snow them. They are left just as confused as before, and often give sympathy awards to the poor injured/sick person regardless of whether the doctor was negligent.
Loser Pays. There are some bad ways to implement it, and he sighted the "Florida Experiment" as one. Nevertheless, a well structured loser-pays scheme would strongly discourage plaintiff's attorneys from bringing weak cases.

Finally, Gardner Duvall spoke. He pointed out that, practically, the proponents of tort-reform need to define their battle carefully and prepare for it properly. The Defense Bar needs to help the political debate. Mr. Duvall also tossed out a novel reform idea: Change the standard from "Would a reasonable Doctor had done the same thing," to "Would NO reasonable doctor have done the same thing."

The sad fact is, and I can't remember who brough out this statistic, 80% of all med-mal cases have NO merit (i.e. no negilgence can be found by a dispassionate review of the evidence by experts), and just as tragically, about 80% of all cases of negligence never result in a any sort of recompense for the victim.

For what it's worth, I liked a number of the ideas... I especially like applying Daubert. If that were combined with loser-pays, and my own addition to the mix, Bifrucated trials (Seperate the liability/negligence issue from damages) then perhaps the issue can really be addressed. Then again, a court appointed expert to review the case and produce the "certificate of merit" could go a long way too.

If you couldn't or didn't make it to the event, shame on you, but I hope my recollections have been useful. Feel free to comment about what ideas you've got in regards to the med-mal issue.

Entangling Alliances?

2004-09-21T11:26:00.000-04:00

Nope, I'm not talking about international affairs that may compromise America's ability or willingness to protect it's interests. I'm referring to the apparent alliance between the "news media" and political parties. Specifically, but not to be partisan, the recent CBS *ahem* issues with apparently forged documents that seem to have been created to attack President Bush present a difficult question, and to me, look like an unseemly alliance that has compromised at least one party's judgment.

Basically, the question arises: At what point, if ever, does a media outlet transition from being a "news source" to being a de facto mouthpiece of a political organization?

Arguably, never.

The Supreme Court has said that the "Freedom of the Press" doesn't actually give any new or different rights to media outlets, but it does tend to reinforce that the freedom of speech that they exercise is not targeted for restriction unduly. (I won't bother digging up cites for that right now, but I might come back later with some.) This would tend to support the idea that there is nothing the government can do if a network, or all networks decide to actively persuade people to pick one candidate over another. (Right now, "news source" advocacy is usually passive, but that's another topic for another time.)

On the other hand, if news sources are allowed to be advocates, it would tend to argue against the reasons they are often given deference in defamation actions.

As for me, I think I fall towards the "no governmental truth-and-fairness detectors" for the media. However, I think that if a governmental official or candidate can make a prima facie case for a defamation case, AND then can show a pattern of bias against him or herself and or his or her party (or ideology), then the high standard required for defamation suits by public officials should be reduced to the normal standard.

I could be wrong, but I don't think this would have a "chilling" effect on speech by the media, because what would be encouraged would be an even-handed approach researching and presenting political news.

So... What do you think? Can or should the government expect the media to attempt to appear ballanced if they purport to be sources of news? If not, then why was a freedom of the press enunciated distinctly from the freedom of speech? If the government can or should be able to enforce some amount of fairness, what threshold should apply, and who should decide what's "fair."

Minimum Sentences = Minimum Justice?

2004-09-20T09:24:00.000-04:00

Here's an article to tickle your noggin... Doing Justice

I see at least two interesting topics in this discussion of minimum sentences.

1. Does a minimum sentence actually promote justice?

On the one hand, I sympathize with the judge in the article. Sending somebody away, effectively for the rest of his life for a "no intent" status crime (Carrying a gun as opposed to firing a gun) does seem remarkably harsh. On the other hand, these substantial minimums seem to apply primarily to repeat (read habitual) criminals.

2. If not, doesn't the most democratic branch of government, the legislature, have the right to demand greater penalties for wrong-doers?

In context, I think that minimum sentences are a response... a backlash rather than some sort of original provocation. The public's perception is that criminals too often get a "slap on the wrist" for significant crimes. The public has a right to want to be reasonably free form the fear that known predatory criminals are free and undeterred by the thought of the criminal justice system. Maybe this is perception is based in fact, and maybe it's just fear, but the fact is that many people in the country think that criminals rarely have to pay for their crimes.

So, for your contemplation: Are minimum sentences cruel and unusual punishment? Does the harshness of the punishment promote justice overall?

I fear that the truth is that harsh punishments don't actually promote justice. The likelihood of getting caught and facing some significant punishment is what (I think) would provide a deterrent effect. If only one in 10 criminals get caught, and of them only 2 in 10 criminals get convicted because of the mistakes in the process and unreasonableness of the jury, and of them only 2 in 10 see a punishment that is more than a slap on the wrist, then we're talking about less than 1/2 of one percent of criminals would fact substantial punishment.

I don't know what the actual numbers might be, but if I'm anywhere near the ball-park, the idea of locking-up 0.4% of criminals for many years looks like a very good bet for the average criminal, and seems almost capricious. Over-punishment the 0.4% won't make up for the fact that 99.6% of criminals don't face enough or any justice.

I could be wrong. What do you think? What do you suppose would be a good way to attack this problem?

Federalist Society Luncheon -- Washington, DC

2004-09-19T13:26:00.000-04:00

D.C. Luncheon - Friday, September 24

Author John Fund
will be speaking on his book:
Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens our Democracy

The Federalist Society is hosting a D.C. Luncheon on
Friday, September 24

The speaker will be John Fund,
Columnist, The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com

To RSVP (acceptances only):
Email RSVPs to rsvp@fed-soc.org
or
Call 202-822-8138
(please include the names of all registrants).

D.C. LUNCHEON

DATE: September 24, 2004
TIME: 12:00 - 1:30 PM
LOCATION: Tony Cheng's Restaurant located at 619 H Street, N.W. (Gallery Place Metro)
COST: The cost is $15.00 for members and $20.00 for guests (collected at the door)

Is an Income Tax in Line with a Federalist Philosophy?

2004-09-17T19:47:00.000-04:00

Sitting through a socialist rendition of “Name That Tax” in last Wednesday’s Tax Policy class, I started thinking. Would our Forefathers condone such a blatant redistribution of wealth?

Then there are the “alternatives” to the income swap: a true consumption tax, a “National Sales” tax, a VAT tax, and a little ditty called the “Mark to Market” tax.

All of these taxes are designed with one purpose in mind: to create revenue to feed the ever-growing central government. But is this what our Forefathers envisioned?

Folks grow up and get married. Then something happens, and kids arrive. Those folks choosing to send the kids to day care are given a deduction for expense, but those parents looking to raise their children themselves are given no such deduction on their taxes.

That’s right, the first couple makes two incomes and receives a deduction for the expenses incurred in day care, but the parents who want to instill their values in their child, instead that of a nanny, get one income and no deductions. Do you think that our Forefathers envisioned this?

I would love to hear your thoughts…

Mark Your Calendar! - Fed. Soc. Event in Baltimore (9-30-04)

2004-09-16T14:35:00.000-04:00

I know, I know, the title doesn't leave much suspense.

The local (Chesapeake) lawyers' chapter of the Federalist Society is sponsoring an event -

The Malpractice Insurance Crisis in Maryland:

A Time for Tort Reform?

Panelists:

The Honorable Alfred W. Redmer - Commissioner, Maryland Insurance Administration
Gardner M. Duvall, Esq. - President, Maryland Defense Counsel, Inc.
Walter K. Olson - Manhattan Institute; author of "The Rule of Lawyers"
Henry J. Sobel, M.D. - Anne Arundel Medical Center

Moderator:

David Hyman - University of Illinois School of Law

Date: Thursday, September 30, 2004
Time: 6:00 PM
Place: Renissance Harborplace Hotel / 202 East Pratt St. / Baltimore, MD 21202 (map)

UPDATE: - I forgot to mention... If you plan on attending (and I hope that you do... if it helps there will be refreshments, including liquid) please email the coordinator for the event, Scott Haiber, shaiber@milesstockbridge.com.

Semester's Focus * (Input requested!) *

2004-09-15T09:52:00.000-04:00

Many of you know, we've decided to participate in the series of debates that the Federalist Society is sponsoring thoroughout the nation on various aspects of the "War on Poverty."

Originally, I had wanted to host discussions of how the War on Poverty impacts and interacts with family law. I still like that idea.

A thought that ocurred to me today as I sat in the incredible traffic mess that is now the normal state of commuting in the Baltimore-Washington area (and increasingly throughout the nation). The thought was this:

How does traffic management policy affect the poor?

I think that there is probably a discernable connection between the policies that guide road-way development and the War on Poverty. For example, is the failure to construct sufficient roads to handle traffic without cronic congestion equivalent to economic discrimination? It does drive up property values near employment centers because people who can afford it, won't choose to spend siginficant portions of their lives stuck in traffic. By using development policy and other "smart growth" tactics, are the people of the state really being served in the preservation of the environment, or does it primarily serve to drive real-estate prices out of the reach of most working-class individuals?

Let me know what you all think about either of these policies. Perhaps we can sponsor debates on both. If you have a different idea, make sure you share that too!

A Maryland Voting Issue (not involving Ralph Nader or touch-screens)

2004-09-15T09:04:00.000-04:00

Although the Federalist Society is non-partisan, issues and public policies that arise in the political and electoral process are of significant interest to us. For that reason, I was intrigued when I heard about this story entitled,Out-Of-Town Voter Ruling Expected Soon. (See also Are Ocean City's Out-Of-Town Voters In?.)

This might not be a big issue, but it's interesting for a couple of reasons. How a state defines "residence" is an important issue. The potential for vote fraud is very high if non-full-time-resident property owners or part-time residents of a municipality are given the right to vote.

The State's current stance, roughly that if you are a resident of the state with multiple possible residences, then you can choose which ONE you want to be your residence of record for voting purposes without regard to where you spend most of your time seems reasonable to me. The important thing is that the individuals who want to vote in Ocean City need to change their driver's licenses (and a couple of other official records) to reflect that choice, and that registering to vote in OC while maintaining an official primary residence elsewhere in the state could result in jail-time.

What I find interesting is the motivation for people to want to register to vote in a location where they do not live most of the time (i.e. Ocean City).

I see two potential motivations
The prospective voters might want to try to have a say in the governance in the location where they have a significant capital investment.
The prospective voters might want to artificially alter the political landscape of the state.
At first, my mind jumped to the second possibility. One thing that is true about Maryland politics is that the parts of the state with lots of money are, well, exceptionally liberal. By that same token, the Eastern Shore of Maryland, (very rural) is predictably right-of-center when the election returns come in. Perhaps the Democrats in the state are frightened by recent advances by the state's Republicans, and they want to spread some votes from where they have a surplus to areas where they are in a local minority.

Perhaps.

However, in my years on this planet, I've learned that people are naturally selfish. When two potential motivations exist, one based in desire for personal gain by the actor, and the other is part of a broader strategy, bet on selfishness. It's possible that there's some sort of plot to change the electoral flavor of the Eastern Shore, but I after consideration, I suspect that we've got a group of property owners who, since they don't live in the location full-time, but because of the economics of Ocean City now have a significant portion of their personal wealth located away from where they live. These people probably have a legitimate concern that their property interests may not be considered in the governance of the city.

It's reasonable. Of course, the locals will have a legitimate argument that it's not appropriate for their voices in local politics to be drowned-out by people who don't have to live with the results every day.

So, my UBFS friends, what do you think? As a policy issue, which side do you think has the best argument?

OK, OK, I give in... Here's a link to a story about Ralph, and here's one to a story about touch-screens.

HEADS-UP! - DOJ jobs deadline approaching

2004-09-14T22:14:00.000-04:00

The following is the text of the email I just received from Peter Redpath, the Director of the Student Division for the Federalist Society. If you're a law student and want to consider getting a job in the Department of Justice after you finish your degree, you'll have to get in through the "Honors Program." If you miss the deadline, don't cry about not being warned...

The deadline for the The U.S. Department of Justice Attorney General's Honors Program is rapidly approaching and I'd like to encourage you to apply if you do not already have plans after graduation.
The Honors Program is the Department's recruitment program for entry-level attorneys and is the only way the Department hires graduating law students.
Go to http://www.usdoj.gov/oarm/arm/hp/hp.htm for more information and please let me know if you end up applying.
Thanks.

Welcome!

2004-09-14T21:42:00.000-04:00

This is the inaugural posting on the Weblog for the University of Baltimore Federalist Society (UBFS). What we're going to do with this blog is keep members and interested persons up-to-date as to the goings-on with our organization.

Of course, since this weblog is run by the officers of the UBFS, all postings will be consistent with the goals of the national Federalist Society organization.

Below, I'm shamelessly copying the purpose from the Federalist Society's webpage because it expresses principles which do motivate this organization.

Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.
The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.
In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.

In addition to updating members with news about meetings and events, this weblog will include postings that link to articles of interest to members, UB students, law student, and legal professionals generally. But wait, there's more! This site will also (occasionally) include original thought about law and public policy issues written by the executive board of the UBFS, and possibly, by our members, by permission.

If you're not a University of Baltimore student, and would like some more information about our school, and especially the law school, follow the links! You can get whatever information you want at the official sites, or at least a phone number to call to get somebody to answer your questions. The great thing about UB is that it provides a quality education without the snobbery that can be noticed at some universities. If you've got a question, the admission's staff (at least at the law school) is more than happy to help.

The UBFS's wise and gracious faculty advisor is Professor Mortimer "Tim" Sellers. He's one of the very best professors in the entire University System of Maryland, and that was recognized recently by his being named the University System of Maryland Regents Professor.

So... Welcome to The Well FED Society.