Next Supreme Court Nominee

I have no special insight into the Supreme Court nomination process. I only note here that it seems interesting to me that both Tradesports and Intrade (navigate to Legal/Supreme Court) exchange networks show Judge Samuel A. Alito to be a heavy favorite.

So, it appears that those who think that they know enough about the process to be willing to risk their own money on it believe that Alito is the most likely nominee.

I should also note that Todd Zywicki of the Volokh Conspiracy doesn’t put any faith in these markets when it comes to picking Supreme Court nominees.

In any event, from what I’ve read, any of the major favorites (Alito, Luttig, McConnell among the men; and Brown, Jones among the women) would make fine justices. I’d prefer Kozinski or Volokh to these, but we’ll probably have to wait a while for that much wisdom to reach the White House and Senate.

I suspect that Bush has learned his lesson about counting on Republican support for nominees who aren’t obviously well-qualified for the Court, so the consensus around these well-qualified judges seems sound on that score.

We’ll probably hear who the next nominee is pretty soon.

UPDATE: It looks like the exchange networks were right this time. Lots of knowledgeable bloggers are saying that Alito is like Roberts: brilliant, congenial, conservative; and would be easily confirmed by any reasonable process. Let’s hope we have one.

Reversing Roe and the Kelo Effect

Tim Lee has written an interesting blog post arguing that if the Supreme Court should happen to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, it might actually have a beneficial effect on meaningful access to abortion.

Just as eminent domain abuse hasn’t been an issue that voters were focusing on before the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo that the constitution doesn’t protect their property from the state taking it to give to other private parties, so the reversal of Roe might alert people to the many regulations that have caused many abortion clinics to close; leaving many people legal, but not actual, access to abortion.

I’m not sure exactly how this would play out. In the long run, I’m pretty confident that abortion rights will be protected. In the shorter run, it’s hard to say. It will probably vary a lot by region.

In any event, I think it’s an interesting question. And, I’m always happy to see people challenging the conventional wisdom, and thinking about non-obvious consequences of possible changes.

Killjoys

James Lileks got it right, as usual, when considering the US dissent from a UN compact promoting national censorship to conserve unpopular culture…

The New York Times put it thus: “As with the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty and the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, (The US) will likely remain a critical – and perhaps obstructionist – outsider.”

Imagine that! The killjoy nation. Monarchy, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, now Tribalism – the US never quite joins in the fun. Everyone else jumps off the bridge, and we hang back, taking notes. Like we’re special or something.

Unearned Money

Yesterday I received a check in the mail that I’m feeling weird about. It’s not a huge amount, but it’s not trivially small, either.

The payment is a pro-rata share from the Vizcaino v. Microsoft class action suit.

As you may recall, this was the case in which some Microsoft temporary workers (sometimes designated permatemps) sued Microsoft for employee benefits. The claim was that, even though they signed explicit contracts to the contrary, they were common-law employees and entitled to the benefits of regular full-time employees, FTEs, including lucrative stock options and employee-purchase-plan discounted stocks. They argued that they were really treated just like employees (worked at Microsoft for years, did identical work under identical conditions as FTEs, participated in meetings and morale events, etc.) and that Microsoft only designated them differently to avoid paying them benefits and to avoid employer taxes.

But, this is absurd. These people, including me, had agreed to a different deal. In most cases, contractors made more money (in terms of pay and immediate benefits) than their FTE counterparts. I know several people, and I’m sure that there are many more, who specifically chose not to pursue full-time employment because they preferred their compensation packages over that of full-time employees. They weren’t being cheated. They agreed to different terms, and Microsoft lived up to its obligations completely.

It was only afterwards, when some saw their FTE counterparts getting rich from the stock growth of the 1990s that they decided that Microsoft should pay them more.

Court decisions were going against Microsoft and they settled the case in December of 2000 for about $100 million.

While some benefit from this, mostly lawyers, many suffer. For example, as a result of this case, Microsoft has changed its Human Resources policies with respect to contractors. Contractors cannot work longer than one year on an assignment. After an assignment, contractors must take a 100 day break away from Microsoft before engaging in any other assignments. Many other distinctions, like exclusion from morale events without overcoming burdensome hurdles, have made life worse for contractors and the overall morale of the teams they are on.

A few years ago, I was notified that I had been identified as a member of the class in the settlement and was asked to confirm the facts of my employment at Microsoft around 1999. I contacted Microsoft’s legal department expressing my disagreement with the lawsuit and to find out whether my choosing to not participate would help Microsoft keep some of the wrongly taken money. I had a nice exchange with a Microsoft lawyer who explained to me that Microsoft had already made its settlement payment and that it would not receive refunds for rejected awards. He thought that if I refused payment, that would only increase the amount received by those who accepted payment. Neither of us could see how that result would serve justice; in fact it would probably do the opposite by rewarding and encouraging those who approved of this sort of thing. Furthermore, Microsoft was not arranging any mechanism for the voluntary return of funds from the settlement (I suspect that they correctly judged that the bad press from such an arrangement would outweigh the benefit of the retrieved money). He did thank me for my support and acknowledged how frustrating the entire case had been.

So here I am with money I don’t think I earned. My first emotional instinct is to give it away; perhaps to the Cato Institute or the Institute For Justice or some other group that will promote the principles of free markets, private property, and contracts that were trashed by this case.

On the other hand, logically, I don’t think it makes sense. The money is now mine, legally and morally. If I could push a button to reverse the entire case (or the portion that benefited me) I would do it. But I can’t. So, I shouldn’t feel guilty about having the money. And, just as I shouldn’t consider sunk costs when deciding what to do with my assets in the future, I don’t think I should let my emotional feelings about the origin of this money affect how I should use it. I think I should treat it just as I would a bonus from my employer. I might give some of it away (because I’m now in a better financial position to do so), but only if I think that’s the best way to further my chosen values; not because I feel like reacting emotionally.

But, on a meta-level, I’m glad that I feel a bit uncomfortable about getting this money. It tells me that I have a strong sense of justice.

I wish the judges in this case had one.

Catching Up

I’ve been out of town for a few days, and now I have a cold, so please understand the lack of posting recently.

I think there’s an interesting comment thread here about funding the rebuilding of New Orleans, and “public goods” in general.

And, I think Tom Bell’s skeptical take on the Miers supreme court nomination is intriguing. It’s helping me stay optimistic about the choice, anyway.

You Can’t Take The Sky From Me

Unlike many bloggers, I wasn’t fortunate enough to get any tickets to an advanced screening of the new movie, Serenity. I think this is a very clever promotional idea. Bloggers will get the word out more effectively than lots of other advertising, and it will hardly cost the studio anything.

I’m really looking forward to seeing it, myself. My son and I love the Firefly series on DVD and enjoy the other Joss Whedon television series (Buffy, Angel).

It seems as though the movie is already rated 8.4/10 at IMDB (3,161 votes). For some perspective, if it could maintain that average among regular voters, that would put it among the top rated 46 US films of all time.

Here’s to it living up to my expectations, and that we get either a nice stream of sequels, or a rebirth of the television series (or both!).

UPDATE: Ok. I’ve seen the movie and loved it. Everybody who thinks they might like it should definitely go see it. Lots of great action and humor. I think it helps if you are familiar with the show, but it’s not necessary to get a lot out of it.

Enjoy!