In his concurrence in Rita, Justice Stevens stressed that the Court’s majority opinion "makes clear . that the rebuttability of the presumption [for within-guideline sentences] is real." Nevertheless, Judge Posner today writing for the Seventh Circuit in US v. Gammicchia, No. 06-3325 (7th Cir. Aug. 9, 2007) (available here) deems one defendant’s efforts to rebut the presumption frivolous. Here is how the opinion begins:
The defendant appeals from his 30-month prison sentence for obstruction of justice. The appeal bespeaks a misunderstanding of federal sentencing law under the regime created by the Booker decision. When as in this case a criminal appeal is frivolous, the defendant?s attorney should file an Anders motion rather than waste the court?s time on a lost cause. We write in the hope of heading off what is assuming the proportions of an avalanche of utterly groundless sentencing appeals.
Judge Posner for Seventh Circuit calls appeal of within-guideline sentence frivolous
Hey general counsel: sick and tired of getting first-year associates staffed on your deals and cases? Well, next time you talk to your outside law firm’s relationship partner, bring up Atlanta’s Ford & Harrison. Then sit back and enjoy the nervous laughter.The 190-lawyer labor & employment firm has decided to eliminate billable-requirements for its first-years. [.] A Year Without Time Sheets
Look, I don’t want to get all sternly moralistic and ranty, but I can’t say I understand the unsolicited email received a couple of weeks ago and which I just now read. It is an invitation for what it calls a “teach-in” on the topic of climate change, peak oil, and global resource depletion co-sponsored at George Washington University by the organizations listed in the email, all of which might well do interesting work (as indeed I personally know to be the case of first two) but none of which could be described as academic or scholarly in the sense of disinterested; they are all activist organizations. Which is fine - I see much virtue in scholar-activism, and do a lot of it myself - until I get to this statement in the email:
“In response to faculty demand, we are offering full scholarships to students whose professors require them to attend the Teach-In. In return, we simply ask students to volunteer one 2-4 hour shift during the weekend.”
My goodness, is it really okay for professors to require students to attend an activist teach-in? Is there really “faculty demand” for this? And is it really okay to “ask” those same students to “volunteer” (?) a shift during the weekend?
The program sounds, in fact, very interesting and valuable. If you look at the full program, here, it has a dynamite line-up of speakers from around the world - I might attend myself and would certainly encourage students to do so. It’s a great program - don’t misunderstand the source of my question.
But looking over the speakers and the program, I am doubtful that it is a genuinely disinterested, scholarly endeavor that a professor could or should require students to attend, at least not by my own professorial ethics, although I am open to hearing other views on this. There appears to be pretty deep agreement among the participants on the fundamentals of things; it appears to be explicitly political and activist. It does, after all, call itself a teach-in.
This is great for certain kinds of conferences, teach-ins, etc., where the whole point of the meeting is to discuss things from a certain point of view, from a certain starting place of policy. For example, one of these days soon I hope to help put on a conference that debates the idea of a national security court - and the explicit organization of the conference would be a first part in which the whole idea, good or bad, is on the table - but a second session in which participants discuss what such an institution might look like, if one set aside or suspended disbelief about the fundamental desirability of such an institution. Yet I myself would be dubious about requiring students, even as part of a class on national security, to attend that second session. But perhaps others feel differently, and perhaps that is a different case because such a conference would have many speakers willing and given a space to debate the whole idea.
That does not appear to be the case of the GW teach-in. It appears to start from a pretty fixed political point. And perhaps I am overreacting to the term teach-in - although it is not my term, but the organizers, which does serve to put its own activist spin on things. In any case, I have serious doubts that one ought to be requiring students to attend a conference that starts out from so given a political or policy point of view, much less volunteering them for service in lieu of fees.
But perhaps I am just putting the worst spin on this and there is some ordinary explanation. I am also curious about the views of other professors on the ethics of requiring students to attend outside events that have a large activist component and a serious political and policy commitment that is not really open for discussion.
*
Email text of 8/13/2007:
Dear faculty friends,
Would you like to bring your entire class to the Teach-In this fall, but can?t ask students to pay an additional fee?
In response to faculty demand, we are offering full scholarships to students whose professors require them to attend the Teach-In. In return, we simply ask students to volunteer one 2-4 hour shift during the weekend.
Individual scholarships are also available to students and community members who would otherwise be unable to attend. Please download the scholarship application form at www.ifg.org
Please contact Janet Redman at janet@ips-dc.org or (202) 234-9382 x215 for information on class scholarships.
————————————–
TO SEE MORE INFORMATION AND VIEW THE FULL SCHEDULE, CLICK THIS LINK http://www.ifg.org/
TEACH-IN: Confronting the Global Triple Crisis
Climate Change, Peak Oil & Global Resource Depletion
September 14-16, 2007
The George Washington University
Lisner Auditorium
730 21st Street, NW, Washington D.C.
Co-Hosted By:
International Forum on Globalization
Institute for Policy Studies
Global Project on Economic Transitions
George Washington University Progressive Student Union Professors requiring students to attend a teach-in?
Amazon.com: “Law School Admissions Test”: Key Phrase pageKey Phrase page for Law School Admissions Test: Books containing the phrase Law School Admissions Test
Law School Admission Test legal definition of Law School Admission .The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) was first given in 1948 and started to gain prominence in the late 1960s. By the 1980s, when the number of applications to law schools began to .
NU officials dispute report (La Vista Sun)The University of Nebraska College of Law discriminates against white students because it has admitted black and Hispanic students with inferior grades and test scores, concludes a study by an anti-affirmative action group.
Kaplan Test PrepOffers undergraduate and graduate college degrees online as well as in classrooms at affiliated college campuses. Also provides test preparation services for college admissions and professional licensing. Employment, site map.
Here are the new TV DVDs, in stores tomorrow.
At 7, CBS has a new 60 Minutes, followed by The 61st Annual Tony Awards. 
