I went to the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) conference last week, and wanted to report on some of the interesting things I learned.
The state and local government section sponsored a session on the aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina. The most interesting speech, as far as I was concerned, was by Paul Boudreaux of Stetson, who compared New Orleans' recovery to Kobe's after an earthquake in the 1990s. While there's been some discussion about New Urbanist design in New Orleans, Kobe has moved in a very different direction: tearing down much of the city's stock of woodframe houses and building high-rises surrounded by parks (the much-derided "Tower in the Park" design championed by Le Corbusier in the early 20th century). Kobe's strategy doesn't sound that appealing from a community-building perspective, but I don't really know enough about earthquake preparation to evaluate the city's plans in detail.
The Jewish Law section was, as always, a joy. The most memorable presentation was by Adam Chodorow of Arizona State. He compared Jewish law with American tax law; Temple-era Judaism had a kind of tax system of tithes to priests and Levites, and the ancient sages labored over such modern issues as the definition of "income" for purposes of these tithes. Just as we worry about the proper balance between tax simplicity and other values, they dealt with the proper balance between tithe simplicity and other values.
The Federalist Society "counter-conference" a few hotels away was also interesting. Randy Barnett spoke about the convergence of views between liberals and conservatives over originalism. While some liberals (such as Jack Balkin) claim to embrace originalism, Justice Scalia, a conservative originalist, has made it clear that he is willing to forsake originalist methodology for the sake of precedent, clarity, or avoiding absurd results. To be sure, there are still divisions: liberals who claim to support originalism tend to define "original meaning" as broad, general values, so there will not be a consensus over Roe v. Wade anytime soon.
David Stras of Minnesota discussed the Supreme Court's declining docket. One might think that the Court's discussion to hear fewer cases is a left/right issue, with conservatives applauding the Court's lassitude and liberals complaining about it. Stras argues that the Court's behavior should concern conservatives as well as liberals; the Supreme Court often refuses to resolve Circuit splits, which means national businesses have to follow one law in one region and another law in another region.
Stras also pointed out that the issue of declining dockets cuts across ideological lines: liberal Justice Ginsburg has been one of the most stingy justices in deciding whether to hear cases, voting to hear only 80 or so cases a year. By contrast, her moderate-to-conservative predecessor Justice White voted to hear 200 cases per year.
Stras proposed that Congress expand the Court's mandatory jurisdiction, by allowing circuit judges to certify cases to the Supreme Court. To prevent the Supreme Court from being flooded with cases, Congress could require a unanimous lower court vote to certify, or allow the Court to reject certifications by a supermajority.
That's not all I heard, but these were the most memorable presentations. (No offense to other people I heard!)
