By Taryn Hartman
Legal News
Last week I was a social-media Nostradamus, asking my 161-follower-strong army (why aren’t you following @tarynha?!) of Twitter followers, “So which @USSoccer player is showing up on the next season of #DancingWithTheStars? #WorldCup #USA” after the U.S. team’s loss to Ghana. Then last Tuesday morning I stumble across a link to the very pink Hollywood Life, which assured me that, yes, “‘DWTS’ Is Desperately Seeking Landon Donovan!”
In the words of Albert/Starina, played by Nathan Lane in “The Birdcage,” one of my favorite movies of all time, “You know I hate to brag!” about how my finger is so firmly and accurately placed on the pulse of American pop culture’s constantly changing zeitgeist. My response tweet of “YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST, FOOLS!” with the Hollywood Life link was only missing the “neener, neener, neeee-ner!”
But beyond my astounding powers of prediction, there were plenty of more legally-relevant things happening last week. For starters, would-be Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing started last Monday. While they’re certainly not the first of the internet age (remember we had Sonia Sotomayor’s just a year ago), there certainly seems to be more live, up-to-the-minute coverage of them through live blogs and updates via tweet.
In addition to streaming them live from a number of news outlets (MSNBC being my broadcast of choice), court-watchers have been able to keep up with the action via liveblogs of Blogosphere faves Above the Law (@atlblog), First One @ One First (@MikeSacksF11F), and political humor blog Wonkette (@Wonkette), which is a must-read if you’re ever having a day from hell. There have also been no shortage of hearing-room tweets from the aforementioned blogs and court correspondents like @PDandrewCBS, CBS News Radio’s chief legal analyst and legal editor Andrew Cohen; and Newsweek and Slate’s @Dahlialithwick. This is by no means an exhaustive list; just a few among no doubt countless others, and simply those that have been showing up on my daily radar. The updated information has been so constant that it’s almost impossible to keep on top of it all.
The Blogosphere and web have also been a great source for some pretty enlightening context on what’s been discussed in the hearings: there have been analyses of Kagan’s mentor Thurgood Marshall and her self-proclaimed ‘judicial hero’ Aharon Barak and links to the Washington Post op/ed from Marine Corps captain and Harvard Law grad Robert Merrill, an endorsement that Kagan said was the only thing that made her cry during the nomination process. (Hat tip on that one to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow (@maddow), who tweeted last Wednesday “This... http://is.gd/d92Hf is the OpEd Elena Kagan says made her cry: http://is.gd/d92Js.”)
This is certainly the first such confirmation I’ve paid a close to obsessive amount of attention to, but I’m not sure if that’s because of the increased opportunities to do so presented by social media or because I think Kagan is a total intellectual ninja. You want to talk about someone who’s qualified? Last week we saw her run legal-reasoning circles around her interrogators, and once she ditched last Monday’s awkward blue blazer and sky-high hairstyle in favor of some simpler jackets and tops, she looked way more comfortable and readily unleashed her inner brainy beast. It makes me die a little on the inside to get caught up in the trivial matter of what she was wearing, but in this case, I think it made a profound difference in the way she asserted herself during the hearing’s second and third days.
And what would your regular Blogosphere dispatch be without a good old-fashioned rant? Nothing, I know; most of you probably tune in for this very reason, and I’m nothing if not appeasing to the demands of the masses. Kagan came slightly under fire for some comments that she’d made in the past about such proceedings being largely “vapid and hollow,” and Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking member, acknowledged that some may indeed fall under that characterization in his opening statements. Ironically, it was last Monday afternoon’s three-and-a-half-hour self-indulgence-a-thon of each committee member giving his or her own opening statement that may only further Kagan’s opinion of the process.
As just one example: It would have been more than appropriate for Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy to take some time at the beginning of the hearing and speak on behalf of the entire committee about the recent passings of Senator Robert Byrd and Martin Ginsburg, the husband of current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Instead, each of the committee’s 18 members regurgitated the same sentiments in their own individual statements, taking up an who-knows-how-much amount of time.
During his opening remarks, Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware said something along the lines of, “A Supreme Court justice can impact the lives of citizens far longer than the senators who confirm her.” NOT IF WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THIS GROUP OF ANCIENTS! The current committee, aka The Old Squad, includes such dusty congressional relics as Leahy, Orrin Hatch, Sessions, lame duck Arlen Specter, Chuck Grassley, Russ Feingold, John Cornyn, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, and even the relatively young-looking Lindsey Graham, who only makes it onto this list because it seems like he’s been around forever. What, Joe Lieberman was busy? Strom Thurmond was too dead? In one of the greatest ironies in world history, six committee members—Specter, Hatch, Graham, Herb Kohl, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Al Franken—also sit on the senate’s Special Committee on…wait for it…AGING!! Poor Kagan looked so crazy bored; after that much time, I’d have been sitting Indian-style in my chair with my shoes off asking someone to make me an Arby’s run.
In other legal- and technology-related news, Michigan’s ban on texting while driving went into effect last week. I think I’ve mentioned before that one of the greatest features of Twitter is its ability to distill into 140-character chunks news items and links to stories that may otherwise have gone unnoticed in the vast online media landscape. While taking my morning glance of feeds that I follow, I found @nprnews’s link to a Morning Edition story titled “States Ban Texting While Driving, But Do Bans Work?”
I don’t know if it’s going to be all that productive to launch yet another debate on whether the new law will or won’t be effective or the slippery legal slope it could create when it comes to what constitutes distracted driving. But as we continue into the summer driving season, I know it can benefit us all to take a deep breath and re-focus behind the wheel.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
