Legal Commentary

Today marks seven years since 9/11. I remember watching the catastrophe from San Francisco. A friend's uncle, one of the heads of an investment firm, perished in the attack, along with many of his colleagues. At the time, I was clerking for Judge Hawkins on the Ninth Circuit and some of my office-mates were gathered at the breakfast bar at the hotel, waiting for the judge to come pick us up to take us to the Court for oral arguments. I think that day the court was closed because there was a fear that other federal buildings might be targeted. Air travel was immediately suspended for a few days, so subsequent oral arguments were performed telephonically in some cases, which, as one can imagine, is pretty tricky to do without having the benefit of seeing a judge's body language.  But the cases went on--which makes me wonder whether telephonic oral arguments or video-conferencing might be a better alternative for poorer litigants, or all litigants for that matter.

Alas, there are now fewer than sixty days left before the election and sadly it seems we still have precious little information about how the candidates would approach various national security and other foreign affairs challenges. In today's NYT, superprawf  Philip Bobbitt and former senator and ambassador John C. Danforth have an outstanding op-ed listing twelve thoughtful and important questions aimed at the candidates. With some luck, we'll get some answers.