My time in the Chi for law school pt xii

Friday, June 22, 2007

Kill Whitey So lawyers suck, unless they're on your side. First news story I turn on the TV to is this story on Fox news about the DA in the Duke Lacrosse case. Everything was fine and good until some schiester [sic] lawyer (but probably not a Jewish lawyer because it is Fox news after all, but I don't know the derogatory term for a shady WASP lawyer) was ranting and raving about Nifong [the DA in the Duke case], and talking about all the repercussions he faced. Now, they all seemed legitimate, but one was quite eye-opening. The schiester was talking about using a Section 1983 civil action against Nifong. For those who didn't have LARC III last semester (or for those not in law school), a 1983 action gives people a way to sue government officials (and government agencies) in civil court for using their government power to violate civil rights. In this case, the schiester lawyer correctly pointed out that there could be an argument the Duke players civil rights were violated. Nifong would have violated their civil rights if he abused his governmental power as a DA to prosecute the players to gain favor with the Black community because the players were WASP posterboys. Now, this was subtly startling (yes, oxymoron). The schiester snuck in that the Civil Rights Act was meant to protect abuse of government power based on race. Yes, this is technically correct (Scalia's ideal of a color-blind Constitution, or here, a color blind law). However, the original intent was to remedy discrimination against minorities, not the man. Now, I think the schiester is correct, and that everyone should have recourse under the civil rights laws. As much as I like Scalia and Originalism, this illustrates that even Originalism can conflict with itself. Still, I find it funny that some Republican mouthpiece was talking about what the Civil Rights laws are supposed to protect against without mention of the history or the original intent of the legislation. I guarantee you when a Republican talks about what type of Justice should be on the Supreme Court, he will talk about how the Justice should be look at the history and the original intent of the Constitution. Though Constitutional interpretation and interpretation of Congressional legislation is different, it isn't that different. I know that the Supreme Court doesn't look to Congress' intent in passing laws unless they have to, but that's the same with the Constitution. The text of the Constitution is limited, so some Justices look to original intent. See, not that different. But what I find even more amusing is the fact that this shiester lawyer makes national news (though it is Fox). The Duke players took the high road and settled with the univeristy. They handled the press conference with class, and acknowledged that there are others out there who get prosecuted based on race (though they probably weren't referring to other White people with money). they have moved on. But now, you place some loudmouth on Fox news about how he thinks it's ridiculous that they settled with the University and how the DA should be punsihed because he prosecuted on race. Maybe Republicans and Hippies have more in common than we think: it's okay if something wrong is going on, just as long as it's not in their back yard.