Part One
Well I guess it’s time that I share what I have seen, learned and experienced here in D.C. I have less than two weeks left here in Washington. This post is “better late than never, but never late is better,” so it’s good that I had all the time in DC to create this post. J
This Part One, this be the first few weeks in Washington…
as aesthetically pleasing as Washington, I think that is what makes New York so distinctive. I would also point out that there are many places around Washington that are not as pretty as Capitol Hill. The Southeast quadrant of Washington is known for having a high crime rate and the city in general has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the United States. There are many things about New York that make it truly amazing, which is why it is a destination spot for tourists from all over the world. The amount of diversity and culture in the city is astounding. You may here 6 or 7 different languages spoken a day in Manhattan, or in any of the other Burroughs for that matter. Because of the cultural diversity, the city has so many things to offer in terms of restaurants, things to do or see, or places to visit. Of course Washington, being a major metropolitan city in its own right, offers a similar experience, but New York surpasses it, in my opinion, because of its massive population.
ack in the District this morning. But New York is amazing, too. I guess this is my chance to stick up for my fellow New Yorkers everywhere to say that yes, New York is loud, smelly, dirty, and crowded. Maybe some New Yorkers are rude and angry. But really, we’re just misunderstood, and I would be proud to call myself a “New Yorker” if I ever lived in the city one day. Maybe you’re crammed into a small apartment with no yard, but that’s what central park is there for. Perhaps Washington is more “livable” than New York, but what does “livable” really mean anyway? Maybe Washington is too obsessed with politics. And perhaps Washington is a bit “uppity,” aren’t most major metropolitan cities? Maybe there are too many lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians in Washington. But I know many people that would say there are too many of these types of people anyway, regardless of where they come from. Honestly, I wouldn’t have New York be any other way. And honestly, I wouldn’t have our nation’s capitol be other place than Washington, either.The Washington Academic Internship Program provides students with an incredible opportunity to do things not possible in a traditional classroom setting. For example, I walk by both the Capitol and the Supreme Court every day to and from work, pay a visit to “Abe” (the Lincoln Memorial) on an almost daily basis, sang Carmen Ohio with the “Archie” (two-time Heisman winner Archie Griffin) in front of a host of Ohio congressmen, met the Australian Ambassador to the United States, and met “John” (Speaker of the House John Boehner). Although each of the experiences listed above is tremendous, the most rewarding aspect of WAIP is the bonds the participants form with one another. Despite having been complete strangers just four weeks ago, four of us spent last Sunday—Easter Sunday—together. (The fifth understandably went home to share the holiday weekend with loved ones). For many of us, it was the first time we had spent Easter away from our families, so we decided to have our own dinner with our new “family”—our WAIP family (or team or wolf pack).
As pictured below, the four of us colored eggs together.
While waiting on the eggs to dry, a couple of us played an Easter memory matching game. As some can attest, this game further exemplified the time-tested truism that life is not always fair. Some people just happen to be better at certain things—things like Easter memory matching games.
After numerous failed attempts to at least win one game, one person suggested we move on to something more suitable to the group’s skill set: cooking. The four of us—yes, FOUR—made steaks, oven-roasted potatoes, green bean casserole, and brownies. Contrary to popular belief, we did not almost burn down the building in which we are living. The food turned out amazing. The best part about the dinner was not the tastiness of the food; rather, it was the cooking process itself. After studying the relatively new field of managerial science, we decided to put it to the test in our cooking operation. As the lead dog in our four-person wolf pack (again, we were down a person last weekend), I volunteered for the role of supervisor of Operation Easter Dinner. I find that I learn best by doing, so after studying management science last week, I thought it appropriate to attempt to apply Dr. Kolson’s teachings in a real world setting. With each young lady handling a different dish, it was important that I ensure high quality across the board. If just one dish failed to turn out correctly, the entire meal could have been compromised. I’m not usually one to take credit, but I was able to take three—how should I say this—“inexperienced” cooks and create an Easter dinner that would have made Spike Mendelsohn proud.
Unfortunately, the feel-good evening came to an abrupt end when it came time to settle on a movie for us to watch as the evening came to a close. I guess you could say there was a mutiny of sorts, as the three girls insisted that we watch a romantic comedy called Definitely, Maybe. Naturally, these were the first 25 movies on my list: http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2010/08/top_25_manliest_movies_of_all_time.php#the_terminator_1984
Living in “The District,” it is impossible not to be reminded on a daily basis of the democracy in which we live. There is strength in numbers, and in this case—much to James Madison’s chagrin—the three girl majority outnumbered my brave, lonely soul. Perhaps this suggests I’m not quite the leader I previously thought. Maybe that is why management science is such a difficult subject. In theory, it is rather straightforward and makes perfect sense. The trouble comes in its application. Theories are often constructed in a vacuum, and whenever humans are involved, “opinions, passions, and interests” can interfere with the decision-making process. The girls’ majority opinion outweighed my dissent, so I had to “muddle through” a chick-flick.
We love Dr. Kolson.
“When you think of the ideal lawyer, whom do you think of?” This was the question that 5 panelists, comprised of lawyers, authors, professors, and former state Supreme Court justices sought to answer at a program held by the American Bar Association. The program was called, “The American Lawyer Ideal: from John Adams to Atticus Finch to …” and was put on as a part of the Leon Jaworski Public Program Series at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Thanks to Leah’s boss at AFJ, we attended the event together after a long day of work.
The panelists were incredibly interesting and came from a variety of backgrounds in the legal field. All had different “ideal lawyers” in their heads. President Lincoln, Thurgood Marshall, John Adams, Abigail Adams, Atticus Finch, and Sandra Day O’Connor were all mentioned and discussed, idealized for the way they sought through adversity, their strong legal minds, and their integrity as attorneys. The panelists discussed many other attorneys, both contemporary and historical that were not as well known. Overwhelmingly, these attorneys were ones who worked as public defenders, in legal aid, or in relative obscurity until they “made it big” when they argued in front of the Supreme Court.
There were so many thoughts that were popping into my head while I was listening to the panelists. One was who I would say is my “lawyer ideal.” First I thought, Justice Antonin Scalia. I feel like I have a particular connection to Justice Scalia, first for the fact that he is an Italian-American like myself. Second, his way of being brutally honest with the way he views the law and not being afraid to say it is also extremely admirable to me. Then I thought, Sandra Day O’Connor. I’ve always enjoyed reading her Supreme Court opinions because of the way she reasons. I feel as though I will be more like her when I’m on the bench because I believe she sees the merits of both sides of an argument and weighs them thoughtfully in a way that brings law to the forefront, rather than person opinion (it’s good to have lofty ambitions, right?).
However, I had a hard time listening to the panelists at the same time I enjoyed their discussion. Every panelist had graduated from an Ivy League law school, and many of the “lawyer ideals” that were discussed were also Ivy League educated. I couldn’t help but wonder: what about your average, everyday lawyer? What about the lawyer that couldn’t afford an Ivy League education or didn’t have the right credentials that would admit him or her to such a school? As a student that may not be able to get in to one of these schools, this fact bothered me. Perhaps this is my “quarter life crisis” speaking. With law school applications looming in the near future, I could feel myself stressing out.
The other thought that I couldn’t get out of my head was the fact that all of these lawyers were not lawyers in big law firms or in corporations. They were public defenders and attorneys working with legal aid and non-profit organizations. These lawyers are some of the worst paid lawyers in the business. What struck me is that the discussion left out an entire class of lawyers that many aspiring attorneys long to be. Apparently I wasn’t the only one thinking of this, because a lawyer in the audience asked a question that dealt with this subject to the panelists. It is a tough reality for me to try and grapple with: I would love to work in the public sector, or as a public defender or legal aid, but I’m going to have tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in debt for law school, in addition to undergraduate loans.
While the discussion left me with some heavy questions about the “logistics” of my future legal education, I still felt inspired and remembered why I wanted to be a lawyer in the first place. President-elect of the American Bar Association, Stephen N. Zack, put it best. He described his own experience in growing up in Cuba. He remembers how the old Cuban Constitution was extremely similar to that of the United States and how so quickly the liberties it described was taken away in the communist revolution. He reminded us that if there are not lawyers defending these liberties how quickly they could be taken away. Lawyers and judges are the defenders of liberty, and the champions of justice. This is why I want to be a lawyer.
On January 11th, I attended the Supreme Court’s oral argument on the J. McIntyre Machinery, LTD v. Nicastro case. This was my first oral argument, although I had toured the Supreme Court before. I heard that attending arguments is sometimes quite difficult, but there was no problem getting in.
I didn’t really know what to expect. Since the Supreme Court is not televised, one most resort to the print industry to keep abreast on current opinions. However, I quickly became fascinated with the judiciary.
According to the Cornell University Law School’s website, the issue presented in the case read, “Where a foreign manufacturer has an exclusive distribution agreement with an independent company in the United States, does national distribution provide sufficient contacts to subject that manufacturer to personal jurisdiction in a products liability suit in a state the defendant does not explicitly target as a market for its products?” I did no research on the case prior to attending, and in hindsight, it probably would have been beneficial. I immediately became lost as the court started its proceedings.
What I will comment on are my reactions while observing. I thought Justice Breyer asked the most pointed questions. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan also contributed substantially in the questioning. I was particularly interested in hearing what Justice Alito had to ask, and he did pose a question toward the end of the argument. However, noticeably silent was Justice Thomas. I kid you not, he appeared to be sleeping most of the time! Subsequent research has found that Justice Thomas has not asked a question in several years.
I can’t back this up with much reasoning, but I thought the defendants presented their arguments better. Attending this oral argument has increased my curiosity toward the judicial branch. Until now, my entire focus has been solely on the legislative branch. It is now time to learn more about the United States Courts. And I’ll be eagerly awaiting the court’s opinion on J. McIntyre Machinery, LTD v. Nicastro!
---JGY
