Back home

We just got back from our brief vacation. A few drive-by observations and thoughts from the past few days:

Every parent should drag their kids down a water slide at least once. Hale, my 3-year old son, was practically kicking and screaming, with me working hard just to get him on the slide. After that, the hard work was getting him not to run around the pool to go again.

Casinos suck. I would never gamble at all, but occasionally the missus and the family like to go play slots. The sound of slots, to me, is the same as the sound of a flushing toilet. As I told my wife, "If I were the gambling, risk-taking sort, I would be getting my MBA, not my JD."

I didn't get my dream job, but I did get a very nice letter from the Senior Partner, inviting me to "keep in touch." Law readers: what do you think that means? Now I need to figure out how I am going to be able to put a law job on my resume for this summer.

The Schiavo case didn't become interesting to me until my snobby intellectual tendencies were engaged by Congress' 11th hour grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts to hear the case. While the blogosphere (apparently) did a lot of discussion of the Constitutionality of the bill, what interested me was more practical: under what legal theory would the review proceed? I guessed due process, but even at the time thought that was not a likely winner, considering the exhaustive process of the last 10-15 years.

This is spot on. I wish Democratic politicians conveyed this information more effectively. On the other hand, maybe tactically the Democrats feel that "judicial obstructionism" is not that big of a political liability, whereas fighting the accusation vociferously has the potential to make it a much bigger liability.

That's all for now. I have a brief due next Tuesday that requires me to research decisions of a state administrative body. Their decisions aren't accessible through West/Lexis, so I have to use the State Bar's site, which has far inferior search capabilities.