- An Afternoon With Madeleine Albright
- Letter to the Editor: Further in Defense of Dershowitz
- Shatter the Ceiling Annual Report
- What Harvard Law Students Should Know About the Recent Supreme Court NC Dental Case: Arguably the Most Important New Precedent for Public Interest, Administrative, Antitrust, and State Government Law Since 1943
- What Harvard Law Students Should Know About the Torture Lawyers: What Will They Tell Their Children?
- What Harvard Law Students Should Know About Reining In Corporate Welfare
- What Harvard Law Students Should Know About the Rights of Employees to Litigate Claims of Wrongful Discharge
- Trolling the Harvard Law Review Competition
- Lambda Removes Diversity Amendment Following DOS Disapproval
- Before You Feel Anxiety About Your Grades…
- Want to Save the World? Do BigLaw!
- Books Bound in Human Skin; Lampshade Myth?
- HLS Students Stand Behind Robin Steinberg
- Record Retrospective: Obama on affirmative action
- “Survivor” Contestant Returns to Campus
- Trolling the Harvard Law Review Competition
- Kill Bill: Beauty and violence
- What Harvard Law Students Need to Know About Law School Transparency
- Why I’ve Avoided BARBRI, And So Should You!
Tag Archives: Mitt Romney
Opinion / November 15, 2012
Several months ago a friend and I discussed the differences between Harvard Law School and our undergraduate universities. One story he told me involved an answer he gave to a professor’s question during his 1L year at HLS—one that was not bulletproof, but one which his undergrad classmates would have accepted or dismissed without protest. At HLS, another student responded and proceeded to dismantle the argument, picking apart every piece of porous reasoning. That was the major difference, he and I decided, between HLS and our previous schools. Here, half-baked arguments don’t get a pass and faulty analysis gets called out. For that reason, HLS students tend to think before they speak or, more commonly, share on Facebook. For some, however, such self-restraint becomes an impossibly herculean task during election season. In one scene from Disney’s “Finding Nemo,” Bruce and two other sharks raise their fins and pledge “fish are … Continue reading
Opinion / November 12, 2012
“This liberal opposition has just got to stop!” Shouted the furious, put-upon Gop, “The natural order suffers awful distortions, Like health reform, gay marriage, safe, legal abortions, Environmental regs favored by the Lorax, And, worst of all, rich people asked to pay tax!” The Gop, you can see, was very distraught, So he sat, and he thought, and he thought, and he thought. That’s when the Gop had an idea. An awful idea. A wonderful, terrible, rule-changing idea. “I’ll buy the election!” the Gop gave a shout, “With unlimited corporate money, we’ll surely win out!” So he put on his suit, and he went to the Court, And he made an argument of the following sort: “This campaign spending, limiting law Features an unconstitutional flaw. For each person first has the right to make speeches To convince America what the right sort of Sneetch is, And money and speech are … Continue reading
Opinion / November 7, 2012
We live in a world where people often get judged based on results. We celebrate winners and criticize losers. In the coming months, Mitt Romney will likely face great criticism, especially as the Republican Party engages in “soul-searching” at its “crossroads.” Journalists and commentators will argue that Romney was a flawed candidate who ran a flawed campaign. Everybody will take turns telling stories about why Romney lost: Where did Mitt go wrong? Was it Big Bird? Binders full of women? The 47 percent? His tax returns? Or Clint Eastwood’s empty chair? Now that the election is over, and with the benefit of hindsight, many people will blame Mitt Romney. Such is the nature of our consequentialist ethic. But I prefer to offer an alternative perspective. Remember the candidates running in the Republican primaries? Mitt Romney was probably the most credible candidate that the GOP could have put up. Herman Cain … Continue reading
Opinion / September 27, 2012
Soon, it will be October, which means shorter days, all sorts of pumpkin-flavored shit, atrociously reffed football games, and the beginning of a seemingly interminable series of debates. Is anyone looking forward to these debates except to catch Mittens finally losing it and cussing out poor people? Despite the fact that Romney’s job for two years was to convince people to believe in a religion based on some golden plates found in upstate New York (do you know what kind of homunculi live in upstate New York?!) and that we are all the “spirit-children” of God, he is surprisingly terrible at debating. Also, while Barack is fairly charismatic, he’s probably fresh out of promises to break in his first year of reelection. Thus, even though this season’s television has already proven to be terrible (Lucy Liu as Dr. Watson, a whole mess of shows about gays that are indistinguishable from … Continue reading
Opinion / September 24, 2012
It’s an election year, and October is almost upon us, so it’s finally time to tear ourselves away from Hulu and Netflix for a few minutes to learn a thing or two about some of the major candidates. The upcoming elections will impact issues important to the Harvard legal community, like whether the judicial nomination landscape will be such that Justice Ginsburg can finally escape the indignity of being captioned another four years (JK—we love Ginsburg too much to ever stop captioning her). Now, this column doesn’t trade in the high-flying, Shakespearean allusions that usually get thrown around in political coverage, so we’ll be teaching you about the candidates in the vernacular of pop culture: DC Comics superheroes. Barack Obama—Aquaman (JLA) There’s no doubt that when Democrat Barack Obama was first elected President, his Justice League analogue would have been Superman. He was a symbol of hope, progress, and the … Continue reading
Opinion / March 1, 2012
At one of the January presidential debates, moderator George Stephanopoulos posed the single best legal hypo of the entire Republican primary campaign to Willard M. Romney, Harvard Law Class of ’75: “Do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” Before we see how the HLS alum did on this exam question, let’s establish a very basic idea that I think just about everyone agrees on: There are unconstitutional good ideas and constitutional bad ideas. To use non-partisan examples, the Smoot-Hawley tariff was a thoroughly constitutional bad idea. The line-item veto was a thoroughly unconstitutional good idea. The Constitution says nothing about contraception, making its proscription a constitutional bad idea. However, if you are a proponent of magical substantive due process, all bad ideas suddenly become unconstitutional. Thus, the entire purpose of the contraception question is to establish … Continue reading