Portrait of the Artist as a Young Geek

Torts. Since it's closed book but relatively simple (read the story, er, "fact pattern" and play Spot The Lawsuit), I think I'm okay, especially after the practice exam I tried Sunday and compared with some other students in the class. I'll review tomorrow morning to be sure.

Friday is Contracts, and that may be trickier, since my notes still aren't organized. (Making your outline at the last minute IS studying!)

Given that I've sent in my second deposit, I should probably mention it here already: I've made my decision, and in August, I'll be moving to Washington DC to attend George Washington Law School. Although both Cardozo and Vanderbilt put up valiant fights, GWU was the only one to offer prestige, an IP focus, and great local opportunities, and after I got their financial offer, I sent my first deposit and that was that.

Looking for housing right now... I'll probably sell both the car and my furniture, and look for a furnished place near a DC Metro line. Gas prices are just ridiculous right now and even if I can't find furnishings there, it'll probably still be cheaper to buy new stuff there than to drive a UHaul cross-country. Not like I had anything I was particularly attached to here anyway.

Next week I'll be heading up to a family reunion for Mom's side of the family. I kind of lucked out in that it'll be in Monterey, which means it's a quick Amtrak trip north instead of a long flight somewhere else. And I had vouchers from a canceled Amtrak run during my school tour. Be gone for about two weeks, but I'm taking the laptop with me (loving that thing) so we'll see if I can't duck on from time to time.

Took a day off this past week to see Professor Kay (finally!) Got some good advice from him regarding law school, but his primary word of wisdom was, essentially, be sure whether law is really what I want to do before I start applying anywhere. He knows far too many people with law degrees who realized after the fact that they hate lawyering, himself included (which is why he later picked up a CompSci PhD and now teaches). So I need to find a good shadowing program somewhere around here (one I can reach via bus) to get a real feel for what patent/IP law will be like. We'll see what's available.

Bush and Congress are preparing to grapple over who's going to replace Sandra Day O'Connor (and likely, in the next couple years, Rehnquist), and the rest of us get to live with the results. But although no one asked my opinion about what kind of person should take the bench, I'm going to tell you what kind of person shouldn't.

There was a (thankfully) short-lived TV series on a few years ago called "First Monday," dramatizing various (fake) cases before the Supreme Court and following the decision process of the (fake) justices, particularly Novelli, the youngest member and supposed "swing vote" (who as far as I can recall voted with the same group of four every time). It was largely inane how Novelli came to his decisions -- they were never based on any principles higher than "It feels good to go this direction," which is no way to run a Constitution.

But there was one episode in particular that cheezed me off. The subject of the case was rights of the parent vs. rights of the child, and as the episode and the case proceeded, Novelli also had to deal with a personal decision on the same subject: should his own son, aged 16, go with his friends on a trip to Europe? Could his own child be entrusted with that responsibility? So Novelli considered the matter, considered the maturity of his son and his son's friends, then finally set a few ground rules for the trip and let his kid go off into the greater world.

And then here comes the moment where Novelli (and the series writers) missed the point completely: he decides that since his kid is mature enough to handle that big a decision, any kid that age should have the same such right, and he rules in favor of the child in the case.

And I wanted to shake Novelli by his robed shoulders and call him an idiot. You don't know what the maturity level of the kid in the case was. The parents are the best judge of that. You, as your own son's father, knew what your own son's maturity level was, and what the specifics of his own decision were, and you made your choice for him based on that. But the mere fact that the other kid is also 16 does not mean they're on the same level! And you came to your decision for your own kid based on days of deliberation, and set limits for him, then denied parents across the nation the same right to make the same deliberation or form the same limits!

Which is where we come to the basic temptation of all justices in the Supreme and appellate courts: to think they're wiser than us on all matters. To think that because they sit on a bench in Washington, unaccountable to anyone, they can decide all that is Right and Wrong in the universe, rather than let those closer to the specific situation make the call.

To think of themselves as our parents.

And so here's my message to the people on the Court now and those to come.

You aren't my mother. And if you think you are, you've got no right to wear the robes.