Polar opposites

It's not unusual that The Salt Lake Tribune, which has been known to face charges of anti-Mormon bias, and the Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, would disagree. But today's example is rather remarkable even by the standards of the editorial holy war that is waged by these two partners in the unholy newspaper joint operating alliance.

Today, the Tribune published a story under the headline "Rape trial for ex-BYU football players delayed." The News, meanwhile, opted for a directly opposed headline: "Y. rape case nearing trial."

So who's right? Actually, I found both stories supremely unhelpful. The News story seems to be a re-hash of old information in the name of just giving an update when there isn't really anything to update. In other words, it's no-news. The Tribune, meanwhile, says the trial has been delayed by a couple of weeks (from June 27 to July 8) but dutifully reports that the Tribune has no idea why the trial was delayed.

Supreme Error

Perhaps many of you have noticed this already, but in poring over yesterday’s Supreme Court opinion in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (the compelled beef advertising case) last night, I came to the realization that the Supreme Court justices and their clerks truly are super-human. To wit: In footnote 7 of Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion, it is stated that a certain Web page was last visited (presumably by someone in the Justice’s chambers) on “May 16, 2006.”

Last time I checked, May 16, 2006 was nearly a year in the future. Of course, it could well be that this footnote 7 will reach the stature achieved by the famous footnote 4 of Carolene Products. Footnote 7 could become known as the beginning of a new kind of Supreme Court jurisprudence – predicting things that happen before they actually take place. In fact, why should the Court even wait until actual cases or controversies are brought before it? Why doesn’t the Court just simply give its answers before the questions are asked?

In some sense, this would make the whole process more transparent. All that is needed are three more votes on the Court. Obviously, Justice Souter already agrees since he created this prediction jurisprudence. And Justice Breyer would probably go along with it, too, since in his concurring opinion in the same case he seems pristinely unconcerned with the facts or the law in the case before the Court and appears manifestly grateful for a pragmatic solution to the problem of compelled generic food advertising: His brief concurrence states his disagreement with the majority’s conclusion that compelled beef advertising (“Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner.”) is government speech; Justice Breyer believes, rather, that the compelled subsidies for such ads are permissible economic regulation but, he says, he accepts the rather outlandish (my word) government speech analysis of the majority as “a solution to the problem presented by these cases.”

Given the recent confirmation fights in the Senate, perhaps this new prediction jurisprudence will improve things a bit. We won’t need to wonder how judges would rule once on the bench because we can just get all their opinions in advance of the cases actually arising.

Federal judge recollects

I recently received from the author a personalized copy of Road to the Robes: A Federal Judge Recollects Young Years and Early Times. It's an excellent read, and I highly recommend it. The author, Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert, is an excellent writer whose experiences in life have been nothing short of remarkable.

Another reason not to take the bench?

As if low pay for judges weren't already enough (see my previous post here), it is now clear that judges face real dangers to their safety. As detailed in this story in today's Salt Lake Tribune, judges in Utah and around the country are contending the U.S. Marshals Service is not adequately protecting them in the face of threats and violence. The judges asked Congress for more money for security.

For many judges, the primary guarantee of security is anonymity. In other words, most of us don't recognize state and federal judges at the grocery store. But when Supreme Court justices are jogging alone in D.C. parks and get mugged, it signals that anonymity may not be enough.

Don't go against the flow

The Utah Supreme Court held today, in an opinion released just minutes ago, that you cannot ride your bicycle against the flow of traffic, even when city ordinance says you can do so.

This opinion vindicates me. The other day I was turning right after stopping at a stop sign when, out of nowhere, a bicyclist comes flying into my path. He was on the wrong side of the street. Luckily, we avoided a collision. But he shook his fist at me, as if to say I had done something wrong. So, buddy, I now say to you: Read the Supreme Court's opinion and stop riding on the wrong side of the road.

One-year old blog

Yesterday I celebrated the one-year anniversary of this blog. In the blogosphere, that's an eternity.

Griffith caught up in bigger battle

Although BYU general counsel Tom Griffith's nomination to the D.C. Circuit finally got past the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is now caught up in the larger battle over judicial nominations, the Deseret Morning News said yesterday. Today's New York Times provides the latest details on the partisan clash over judges.

I have found it interesting to note the extent to which Latter-day Saints are playing a prominent role in this judicial fight. Besides Griffith, two other Mormons are highly involved, and they have been at each other's throats. Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah have not been very Christlike in their criticisms of each other. But maybe in politics the Golden Rule does not apply?

Leavitt at U. law commencement

Mike Leavitt's son is graduating from the University of Utah School of Law this Friday, and so the former governor and current Bush cabinet secretary will speak at the commencement Friday at 10 a.m. at Kingsbury Hall. Leavitt is not a lawyer so maybe he will actually have something useful to say to the newly minted law grads, who will thereupon immediately forget anything useful he might have said and begin to study for the bar exam. For you Utah grads, the bar exam does not consist of determining how many alcoholic beverages you can ingest in a fixed period of time.

Appeals court finalists

Three trial judges, three private practice attorneys and one state prosecutor have been named finalists for a spot on the Utah Court of Appeals. The public may submit comments on the finalists until May 19. I guess, secretly, many lawyers have always known they are smarter than the judges before whom they appear. The funny thing is that as soon as those smart lawyers get on the bench they turn into dumb judges in the eyes of some members of the bar who covet their (lower-paying) jobs.

Congrats

Congratulations to Judge J. Thomas Greene of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, who recently celebrated 20 years as a federal judge, as detailed in this story in The Salt Lake Tribune.

Law against paper

The Salt Lake Tribune tracks developments toward the paperless law practice.

Privileges prevail in defamation suit

The Utah Court of Appeals today, in a memorandum decision, affirmed summary judgment in favor of The Salt Lake Tribune in a defamation lawsuit brought by an illegal alien who has reportedly filed thousands of Freedom of Information requests and dozens of lawsuits against the U.S. government. The court relied on the neutral reportage and fair comment privileges.

More Solomon coverage

The Chicago Tribune covered the Supreme Court's decision to review the Solomon Amendment case from the Third Circuit. So did Tony Mauro. My alma mater, Northwestern University, is not among the law schools challenging the law.

Print strikes back

In the face of pressure from the Internet and other communications media, the magazine and newspaper industries are fighting back, via a marketing campaign, as detailed in The New York Times.

Supreme Court to hear Solomon case

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case involving a group of laws schools who challenged the constitutionality of a funding restriction for schools that don't accommodate military recruiters on campus. The government appealed a decision by the Third Circuit that held, against the dissent of Judge Aldisert, that the Solomon Amendment infringed the schools' First Amendment rights.