Congratulations to Cardozo faculty Barton Beebe, Dan Crane, and Myriam Gilles - all three have been invited to present at the Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum today and tomorrow. (AntitrustProf Blog announcement - Crane paper)

From the Cardozo Press Release:

No other law school has multiple faculty members presenting their work this year.

“Cardozo has been known since its founding for a young, vibrant and prolific faculty. We are delighted that the junior members of our faculty, who follow in that tradition, are again being recognized for their scholarship by the larger scholarly community,” Dean David Rudenstine said.

The forum encourages the work of young scholars by inviting professors with one to seven years of teaching experience to submit unpublished papers for evaluation. Papers are selected by a jury on a blind basis for presentation, discussion, and critique by two senior scholars. Since the forum began in 2000, seven Cardozo papers have been selected for presentation, five of which were selected since 2003 – more than any other school except Harvard University. Professors Scott Shapiro, Kevin Stack, and former Cardozo professor David Golove were selected in previous years. Last year Kevin Stack presented The Statutory President, which was published in the Iowa Law Review in January. This is the second time Professor Beebe was chosen.

Everyone has noticed the lines at many ladies' restrooms, but this sounds a piddle little extreme:

Potty parity, a number one priority, is now the law. To the relief of women throughout the city, New York buildings (new and newly renovated) will now require two Janes for every John. The original bill would have required all buildings - old and new - to conform. But too many people felt that that version had to go. Apparently, the new bill whizzed through the City Council, passing unanimously. The bill's supporters are no doubt flushed with joy.

My earlier analysis opposing predictions of Dumbledore's death is called into question by the news:

Reports have indicated that there may have been a leak from the printers. Many of the Dumbledore bets have apparently been coming from the town the printer is in. But a couple of things seem sketchy about this. First, apparently there was some leak there in Book 5:

It is thought that much of the latest Harry Potter book is being printed in Germany, following security leaks at Clays during the publication of the fifth book in the series, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. A forklift truck driver at the printing plant pleaded guilty in May 2003 to stealing pages from the book and attempting to sell them to the Sun.

Would they really go back there to print without some really good assurance there were more security measures in place this time? And publisher Bloomsbury sent an email to MuggleNet saying:

J. K. Rowling has mentioned previously, in various situations, that any rumour, unless confirmed by herself personally, or by her publishers which are, but not limited to; Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, Scholastic Trade Books and Raincoast Publishing, is merely a rumour and should be treated as trivial.

We repeat: The security measures in Bungay are sufficient to ensure the prevention of any 'leaks'.

Sure, this is a sort of standard reply, but there have been lots of rumors, lots of replies like this, and I don't know of any rumors that have been true.

There's also been "a surge of punters trying to place bets on the character Dean Thomas being the half-blood prince of the title". Interesting theory, but here's the catch with it: according to Rowling herself, in discussing editorial cuts about Dean's background, "[n]ow, I don't think his history will ever make it into the books." (Sorry, no direct link, but go to Rowling's official site, then click on the coffee cup ("Extra Stuff"), then on "Edits", and you'll see the info about Dean.) Surely, explaining that he was the half-blood prince would require some history!

Rowling goes on to explain some things, including that nobody knows Dean's real history: his father didn't abandon them like is thought; he never told Dean's muggle mother he was a wizard, but was killed by the Death Eaters after refusing to join them. Rowling says "I suppose in some ways I sacrificed Dean's voyage of discovery for Neville's, which is more important to the central plot."

Now, if the two "leaks", come from the same source, as it seems to be thought, then the Dean leak especially calls them into question. Rowling has never deliberately misled readers, so there's no reason to assume her info on Dean is intended to do so. But it does make him perhaps the darkest horse to be the half-blood prince... and a very bad bet.

Professor Bainbridge thinks that "Dumbledore has got to go." And he's able to cite to London bookies, who apparently agree. But Dumbledore? I'm not so sure.

I like to fancy myself an "expert" on the subject, but I realize that my hyper-jurisprudential take on the books may cloud my vision of the obvious. Still, if I really had to guess (which of course means that I will), it wouldn't be Dumbledore. At least not now. But before I actually hazard a guess, let me say that I'm not too confident in it. Rather, I offer it as an illustration of one of many reasons I think Professor Bainbridge's analysis may be jumping the gun. (I actually think there's a good chance of Dumbledore dying, but I also think it's more likely in book 7).

So here's the guess (as qualified above):

Snape. The man we all love to hate... for now. Dumbledore has been out of the picture in other instances (called away by a fake message to meet with the Minister of Magic, very low-profile for most of Order of the Phoenix, etc.); I don't think his death is required for that reason alone...and certainly not yet. Snape garners a lot of ire from the reader, mostly for the way he treats Harry. Yet Snape commands, for reasons as yet unknown, an uncharacteristic degree of trust and respect from Dumbledore - uncharacteristic with respect both to how Snape is treated by most people and the trust Dumbledore has in most people. The books are nothing if not suspenseful and twisting (albeit everything always makes sense in the end, unlike plot twists in so many contemporary novels), so I expect this one to be no different.

Snape is clearly a lot more important than we have given him credit for, and has put himself at substantial risk with the Death Eaters in Phoenix. I think a possible scenario would be that just after learning why Dumbledore trusts Snape so much, and, in turn, how important Snape is to the Order, Snape is killed. We may even like him by that point. Also, many people expect Snape to die based on his name. I've seen a number of versions, the least-sophisticated, but easiest to explain is simply to read his name as "sever his nape". Rowling's names are of great significance, but I'm not so jazzed about the nape-severing thing reading because Rowling's name significance is generally fairly etymological, not casual. Now, this reading also ties into what many have read as undeniable signs of a beheading of someone in the series. I'm not so certain I buy that theory, but I do think Snape is a good candidate for death, nonetheless.

Back to Dumbledore, I do think (with near-certainty) that we'll find out at least one more thing about him this time 'round: he is an animagus that transfigures into a bumblebee (maybe a cockchafer, but I'm guessing bee). I also wouldn't be surprised if we learn more about Dumbledore's brother, who has already rather conspicuously appeared in the books.

MATHTURBATION:

What pseudoscientists, cranks and charlatans use to "prove" their self-indulgent theories.
The nutjob used mathturbation to show that the Bible contains an encrypted message warning of the September 11th attacks.

I recently encountered the following description of the state of graduate economics programs, specifically those that do not teach the history of economic thought:

...a combination of intellectual laziness and mistaken arrogance on the part of economic mathterbationists [sic]....

The quote comes from an email listserv - one that has been very lively recently, discussing responses to people that believe the history of economic thought is the history of error, thus shouldn't be taught. The replies have rambled a bit, drifting at points, and for unknown reasons, into fairly heated discussions of allopathy versus osteopathy.

I have to say that the is more than an apt description of far too many departments. Too many economists have methodologically abandoned their field, instead acting as applied mathematicians. The problem is that, since the abandonment is (1) only methodological and (2) so common, they have become the hegemony in many (or most) departments. Last summer, I encountered advanced graduate students (and one Ph.D.) from a top U.S. graduate economics program that didn't even understand ECON 101-style supply and demand. But, boy could they write out a proof! To some extent, this is true of even very heterodox economists, though many say it is only to be respected by or speak the same language as everyone else.

The result of economics' hyper-mathemetization is that "economists" go around ignoring economics entirely and everyone plays with equations to get their jollies. (I'll not even attempt to make a Slutsky joke here, although they somehow remain popular, especially among grad students.) Hence the applicability of the term "mathturbation".

Finally done with my 7-class semester, the blog shall be resuscitated. My courses this semester were with some of Cardozo's very best. In my one remaining semester, it seems hard to imagine that I'll be able to engineer a schedule quite so exciting, nor so demanding (whew!):

Doctrinal (with exam; in random order):

• Professional Responsibility - Taught by 2 Adjuncts.

• Family Law - Finding the subject a lot more interesting than I had anticipated, the best feature of the course was the professor: philosopher-turned-lawyer Ed Stein.

Seminar (grade = paper; listed in order paper was completed):

• (Advanced?) Cyberlaw Seminar - Although it didn't require, as a pre-requisite, its (previously) 4 credit hour doctrinal counterpart, the course was certainly advanced. Taught by Professor Susan Crawford, who was most befittingly described by one of her many über-impressive guest speakers as "the rock-star of cyberlaw".

• Law & Religion - Closed during registration to 3L's, even before the 2L's were allowed to register. The seminar was taught by Marci Hamilton, known outside of law schools for her findlaw column, known in Con Law classes as lead counsel (for the city) in Boerne v. Flores, 507 U.S. 521 (1997).

• Hegel's Science of Logic - Ok, so it wasn't really a law class. Taught by Cardozo's Professor David Gray Carlson, whose book on Hegel's book (the one serving as namesake for the course) is forthcoming.

• Democratic Interpretation - A seminar with philosopher Scott Shapiro, co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law (with Jules Coleman). Student-prepared discussions of some of the meatiest legal philosophy out there. Truly one of the best courses ever.

• Action, Intention, & Responsibility (a.k.a. Existentialism and the Problem of Action) - Again, not really much of a law class per se, it was a New School graduate philosophy seminar, taught by Tanglewood-pianist-turned-lawyer: Cardozo's philosopher Martin Stone (who also taught my torts class first-year). Another winning course.

Hopefully, the two-exam, five-paper tally justifies the low blog profile of late. It's been a rough couple of weeks finishing it all up.

The careful reader (that knows C.V.s like cool other people know sports statistics) might have realized that I had three JD/PhD'd philosophers, along with other notables, this semester alone. Not an accident. Most of this semester's course selection for me was on the basis of who, not what.

Another interesting case in today's LexisNexis Study Break was Reuther v. Southern Cross Club, Inc., S.D. Indiana (1992). It involved a scuba diver's injury caused by a "huge wave" that struck the boat. The interesting part: the judge's repeated quotes from and references to the theme song from Gilligan's Island.

The very first sentence of the opinion (including its footnote):

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale" of what happened when David Reuther, while vacationing in the Cayman Islands at the Pirates Point Resort hotel, decided to go SCUBA diving--"a fateful trip that started from this tropic port, aboard this tiny ship." [FN1]

FN1. We quote with reference (and apologies) the theme song from the syndicated 1960's sit-com television favorite, "Gilligan's Island": [ed. - the entire theme song is quoted , but is omitted here].

The complaint stated that the boat's pilot should have waited for the wave to pass before moving into channel. The judge summarizes the allegation as "perhaps the 'skipper' was too 'brave and sure.'"

This morning, I received an email from LexisNexis, offering a "Study Break" and 100 rewards points for looking up and Shepardizing a few cases. Now, being a diligent "LexisNexis Elite" member, I'm always bucking for some extra points (also at Westlaw, of course), in hopes to graduate law school with some nice consolation prizes parting gifts.

A couple of the cases were thoroughly enjoyable, not only for their brevity, but also for their uniqueness. So I thought I'd take a minute to share.

As it turns out, there is a federal district court case with a caption of "UNITED STATES v. SATAN AND HIS STAFF" (54 F.R.D. 282, W.D. Penn. (1971)). Well, it's about time, eh? How many years has his malevolence gone unlitigated?!? The allegations were of civil rights violations, no less. Indeed!

Alas, the court came to the conclusion that

Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district.

Now, I have previously blogged about my disapproval of broad purposeful availment via the internet, but if co-blogger Pennoyer (and the several courts so holding) are right in their wishy-washy "fairness" defense of those cases, then surely we can hale Satan and his minions into court nowadays, given their nefarious presence on the internet.

Notwithstanding my thoroughly masochistic 5-seminar-paper, 2-exam marathon end to the semester, beginning with tomorrow's midnight cyberlaw seminar deadline, I feel some obligation to take the time to say something about this...for two reasons:

(1) I am (nominally) involved in an amicus brief in support of the government in this case, being written by Gerald Walpin, Of Counsel to KMZ Rosenman (now known as) Katten Muchin Rosenman and a Director at the Center for Individual Rights; and

(2) Two blogs I regularly enjoy reading (Althouse and Law Dork) have pointed to a great FindLaw article by Marci Hamilton, who, as of noon on May 17th, will be the (proud?) possessor of one of the aforementioned seminar papers (law & religion seminar).

I think Hamilton is dead-on here:

There is no First Amendment violation at all here. The lower federal court - the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - found such a violation, based on tenuous logic, but the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to make the same mistake. Indeed, the Court may have taken the case precisely to correct the Third Circuit's error.

Importantly, Hamilton points out what Gerald Walpin did when he spoke at a Cardozo Federalist Society event earlier this school year: this is really a protest to "don't ask, don't tell", challenges to which have, for better or worse, consistently failed. The Court is not the place to fight this political battle.

This time, the story about the finger in restaurant food is no hoax. The unsuspecting customer recalls:

"I thought it was candy because they put candy in your ice cream or whatever to make it a treat," he told a Wilmington television station on Sunday. "So I proceeded to put the object in my mouth, got all the ice cream off of it and spit it in my hand."

Although these cases are often bogus (like last month's Wendy's chili story), this time there's no doubt - we know exactly whose finger it is. And it makes two fingers lost on the same frozen custard machine in less than a year, the first being in July 2004.

...why this?

CAPE MAY, N.J. (AP) - Come on in, Speedo wearers, the water's fine: Your skimpy little swimsuits are legal now. For more than 30 years, this quaint little Victorian-themed resort at the southern tip of New Jersey said no to "skintight, formfitting or bikini type" bathing attire on males over the age of 12.

Some astute observations in the article:

Not that everyone's cheering. It's often the older guys - the ones with beer guts, or wrinkly skin, or unsightly tufts of hair - who wear the tiny swimsuits.

"The people you want to see in the Speedos, you don't," said Maggie Creighton, 19, who works in a downtown lingerie store.

...
"A lot of people do come in and say 'Do you carry Speedos?' said Becky Fitzgerald, sales clerk at Della's General Store. "It's the 40- to 50-year-old group who ask. And it's funny, their bodies aren't the shape for Speedos."