Top Three Local Vineyards

Carly Crist '19
(she/her/hers)
Guest Columnist

Name: White Hall Vineyards (Rank #3)

When you went: Weekend afternoon

Best for small or big groups? Small

General vibe: The employees were phenomenal and did everything they could to have us enjoy our tasting experience. 

Favorite wine from that vineyard: Gewürztraminer, as that is not common to have at a tasting

Anything interesting about the vineyard that makes it different from others? They brought out the actual grapes for us to try while we were doing the wine tasting. Right outside, they also have trees that grow pawpaws. A pawpaw is a fruit that has the texture of an avocado but tastes tropical, like a mango. The guy pouring our tasting brought one in for us to eat and before we left we were able to go outside and collect as many as we wanted to take home with us. 

Quality of “free” wine tasting glass (1 to 5): I don’t believe the glass was included, but at $5 for the regular tasting and $10 for the reserve tasting, paying a few dollars for a glass is not bad at all!

Name: Horton Vineyards (Rank #2)

When you went: Friday morning/afternoon 

Best for small or big groups? Either, can accommodate large groups easily for tasting

General vibe: The employees were extremely friendly and knowledgeable about the wines. They handled a very large group with ease and were fun with us, especially as they gave us additional wines to try during the tasting. However, there were a handful of fruit flies in the room.

Favorite wine from that vineyard: The fruit and dessert wines; most vineyards don’t have them, but Horton has many of both to try and all are delicious. 

Anything interesting about the vineyard that makes it different from others? With the tasting, you get to choose which ten wines to try out of more than forty, and not everyone in the group has to try the same ten. When I was there, they actually gave us more than ten, as they kept asking if we wanted to try different ones. Next to each wine and its description on their list is a nickname, like “Pizza Wine,” “Sippin’ Red,” “White Burgandy,” or “Spanish Delight.” 

Quality of “free” wine tasting glass (1 to 5): The glass is not free, but the tasting was significantly cheaper than most at $6, making a $3 glass very reasonable

Name: Veritas Vineyard & Winery (Rank #1)

When you went: Weekend afternoon 

Best for small or big groups? Either; it can accommodate large group with its large outdoor area, so it is easy to hang outside with a large group to drink wine.

General vibe: Large open tasting room with the word “LOVE” made out of wine corks hanging from the ceiling, an enormous lawn with vineyards in sight, and a beautiful view of the mountains.

Favorite Wine from that vineyard: I really can’t choose. This is my favorite winery because it is the only one where I liked every single wine at the tasting (white, red, and in between). However, I would recommend the Viognier, because while it is made with the Virginia grapes— and so almost every vineyard here has it—it is better at Veritas than many of the others. 

Anything interesting about the vineyard that makes it different from others? On the second Saturday of each summer month (June, July, August, September) they host an outdoor concert on the lawn, and people bring picnics and enjoy wine while listening to music. This August, I attended when they hosted the Legwarmers. 

Quality of “free” wine tasting glass (1 to 5): 5, you get a free glass with each tasting and some events held there. I currently have a set of four Veritas glasses.

---

cac5gs@virginia.edu

 

A Message of Unity

 

Joint statement by the Virginia Law Democrats and the Virginia Law Republicans

After the events of August 11 and 12, leaders of both the Law Democrats and the Law Republicans were unsure about whether we could meaningfully add to the cadre of voices sharing their experiences on the horrors that shook our community. The labels “Democrat” and “Republican” were not the targets of those bearing torches, perpetuating violence, and carrying messages of hate and bigotry. We cannot, therefore, speak to what it must feel like to be threatened in the manner so many were on those awful days. 

We can, however, speak to the shared pain the events of those days have caused our community. We can say with confidence that we all felt it then and we all feel it now. After discussions between leaders from both organizations, we decided to offer our community this: In a time of division and uncertainty, we want to offer an example of unity and direction, a statement of commonality connecting two sides that too often today seem diametrically opposed. 

The following is therefore a statement made on behalf of both the Law Democrats and the Law Republicans, sharing our unified perspective on the events that occurred in Charlottesville on August 11 and 12 and our shared hope for one part of the path forward for our community.  

First, we wish to state, unequivocally: We renounce neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and any other group who would seek to use violence, hatred, bigotry, or fear as a tool of suppression of the rights of any member of our community. Such groups have no place in our party membership nor, we believe, in our political discourse. 

Second, we express our support for those who may feel ostracized or fearful as a result of the events of August 11 and 12 or any other expression of violence against them because of their identity or belief, including race, religion, nationality, gender, or creed. We stand with you today and always. We renew our commitment to your protection and full inclusion in our community. 

Third, we make two requests: First, a request for democratic engagement. The second is a call for civility. 

That so many felt comfortable publically advocating such a reprehensible message on August 11 and 12 undeniably shows how far our society still has to go to eliminate hate and injustice. Though our parties may sometimes disagree regarding policy on how to achieve that goal, we share beliefs that reveal our unity. We can all agree, for example, that the events of August 11 and 12 reveal the need for strong public leadership. Now, more than ever, our community—in Charlottesville and across the country—is in need of leaders who will actively and unequivocally seek to expel forces of evil and injustice. To get leaders like that into power, no matter which party label they bear, we have to vote. We have to participate in state, local and national governance. We have to read the news—beyond just our friends’ Facebook statuses—and we have to actively seek out perspectives that challenge our existing beliefs. Whichever side we support, we must tenaciously engage in the peaceful exercise of democracy. It is the most powerful rebuke we can give to those who would seek to undermine it. 

Further, when we exercise our right to participate in a thriving democracy, whether it be through voting, campaigning, issue advocacy, or simply discussions of the day’s issues, we request that our community join us in attempting to do so with civility. Civility means respect and tolerance for those different from ourselves. Civility means judging a person based on their humanity and character, not for whether they lean right or left. Civility means doing the hard work of putting ourselves in our neighbor’s shoes, to learn from them, and to see the world in a way we might not have considered only a moment before. Choosing civility is not an easy task, particularly when wounds are deep and the stakes are high, but it is absolutely essential to preserving the core of democracy, where humility and tolerance serve to keep the forces of demagoguery and hate at bay. 

In six days, Charlottesville will enter its first test of democracy since the events of August 11 and 12. That is, in six days, it is election day in Virginia. If you don’t know who is on the ballot, we ask that you learn (ask any of us, we’d be glad to chat with you). If you weren’t planning to vote, we hope that you will change your mind. If you are planning to vote—or canvass or poll-watch or phone bank or debate or whatever—we ask that you aspire to do so with civility. Before you vote, we ask that you take the time to get to know the nuances of the civic forum, to understand the perspectives of all its members, and to ask the tough questions. 

The events of August 11 and 12 were disgusting. They represent the darkest corners of our community and we must all do our part to ensure that they, or anything like them, never happen again. But the events of August 11 and 12 cannot, by any means, define our community. Rather, days like November 7, when we come together to engage as a community in the lofty tradition of collective self-governance, are what define us—and what will continue to define us, should we continue to rise to the challenges this process necessarily entails. We believe in our members and we believe in our community, we are ready to get to work defining both as a peaceful, civil, and thriving democratic community where the rights of all are respected. 

---

cat5af@virginia.edu

tsj7dn@virginia.edu

 

Opinion: A Return to Process in the AG’s Office

Charlie Beller '18
(he/him/his)
Guest Columnist

It’s Time for a “Virginia”1 Lawyer. As the past year has made all too clear, we live in a divided political climate.  UVa Law seems exceptional within the larger national, state, local, and University environments in its commitment to facilitating dialogue among varying viewpoints.  Two instances last week offer great examples:  the Virginia Environmental Law Journal’s symposium on “progressive” federalism under the Trump administration and the Common Law Grounds event on democratic dialogue in a polarized media landscape.  These events are just two examples of the rich discussion occurring at the law school that transcends and challenges political and ideological categories.  In a very real sense, our community seems intent on engaging differing viewpoints and seeking “common ground.”  

John Adams, Virginia Law '03, a candidate for Virginia Attorney General.

John Adams, Virginia Law '03, a candidate for Virginia Attorney General.

As a 3L, this all seems normal at UVa Law.  Yet when we look at the national, local, and even University communities, mutual respect and civility seem to disappear.  What makes the law school community special?  There are many things.  But one that deserves appreciation is a respect for process that we learn here at UVa Law.  The term “thinking like a lawyer” gets thrown around without much specificity.  Yet on some level, it conveys a special respect we learn as law students for the legal process as a mechanism for translating cultural norms and ideas into legal rules.

It should come as little surprise to students of this law school that alumnus John Adams’s campaign for Attorney General of Virginia is defined by a commitment to legal process and separation of powers.  As with all campaign slogans, these principles are empty without reference to how these principles manifest themselves in policies and courses of action.  The duty to defend the laws of the Commonwealth is one issue Adams has emphasized a commitment to legal process that would lead him to different results than incumbent Mark Herring.2

Our own Professor Saikrishna Prakash has noted in recent scholarship that the duty to defend state laws raises myriad legal issues that are highly susceptible to political exploitation across the partisan divide.3  In short, there are many considerations, including state and federal constitutional obligations, a state officer must consider in evaluating his or her duty to defend a state law.  Adams’s position is that it is not a blind “duty to defend,” but a commitment to defending validly enacted laws, with emphasis on state constitutional provisions.4  This stands in stark contrast to incumbent Mark Herring, who has declined to defend even laws he supported as a state legislator.

At the federal level, the Department of Justice has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if “reasonable arguments can be made in their defense.”5  Importantly, however, the “department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a ‘reasonable’ one.”6  Accepting former Attorney General Holder’s permissive standard of reasonableness, Mark Herring has some explaining to do.

In 2006, Professor A.E. Herring supported Virginia’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.  In 2014, he declined to defend the very same law he supported and voted for.7  Under the permissive standard outlined by Holder, either Herring’s judgment as a Virginia state senator lacked any “reasonable” justification or Herring declined to defend Virginia law for political reasons.

Professor Howard has argued that Herring was within his constitutional authority to decline to defend a state law he perceived to violate the federal Constitution.8  But even if declining to defend a state constitutional amendment is within the discretion of the attorney general under the Virginia Constitution, Holder’s description of standard executive practice (at least at the federal level) highlights that Herring should have considered whether he could make a “reasonable” argument in defense of the law.  Herring might have had a profound personal change of opinion, but his executive decision to nullify a Virginia law he presumably thought lawful and correct, at the least “reasonable” (one only hopes) when he voted for it, reflects a disregard for his duty to serve as Virginia’s lawyer.

All persons in private and public life, including the attorney general, should reconsider personal positions following reflection and dialogue with differing views.  Indeed, strong executive leadership often requires reevaluating prior beliefs in light of additional information or further study.  But a radical shift in personal opinion should be accompanied by a level of intellectual and political humility—especially for public officials whose decisions have the potential to affirm or undermine the rule of law.  If Herring thought he was fulfilling his public duty by voting in support of the Virginia marriage amendment, it strains credulity to believe that he could marshal no reasonable arguments to defend the law he supported as a legislator.

Should we worry about process if ultimate outcomes align with our sense of justice? Yes.  Particularly in a divided political environment and in a politically “purple” state like Virginia, respecting process is essential to the stability and legitimacy of changes in the law.  In periods of political uncertainty, a commitment to process also provides security against the risk that legislative victories will be nullified by the executive whim of future administrations.  As many progressives have come to appreciate, executive power is a double-edged sword.  For those intent on changing the law, respect for legal process and the separation of powers are principles that provide stability to legal and social progress.

You might disagree with Adams on the substance of certain issues, but his campaign message is an important reminder that legal process matters to good government, now more than ever.  For many, outcomes are all that matter.  In our heated political environment, elevating results over process might seem like the only way to ensure that we achieve our perceived sense of justice.  But if we “think like lawyers,” we recognize the separate and unique value of the law making at the legislative, executive, and judicial stage.  As Lawhoos, we’ve learned to respect the process of debating, legislating, litigating, and adjudicating the law.  If you want a “Virginia” lawyer for the Commonwealth, consider fellow Hoo John Adams next Tuesday.

---

gcb4be@virginia.edu

1 UVa, of course.  See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 584 n.4 (1996) (Scalia dissenting) (“there is only one University of Virginia.”).

2 “As your Attorney General, I would never disrespect the will of Virginians by refusing to defend perfectly valid Virginia Constitutional amendments in court.” John Adams for Attorney General, Issues, http://www.johnadamsforva.com/issues (last visited Oct. 30, 2017).

3 See Prakash, 50 States, 50 Attorneys General, and 50 Approaches to the Duty to Defend (with Devins), 124 Yale L. J. 2100 (2015).  

4 Supra, n. 1.

5 See Letter from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Att’y Gen. of the United States, to John A. Boehner, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives (Feb. 23, 2011).

6 Id.

7 See Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014).

8 Bill Sizemore, Author of Va. Constitution backs AG on Marriage, The Virginian-Pilot (Apr. 14, 2014).

 

Auction Time: PILA Approaches

Jason Boyle '18
(he/him/his)
Lead Auction Director

Photo courtesy of Jason Boyle.

Photo courtesy of Jason Boyle.

On Saturday, November 4 at 9 p.m., law students from each class—ranging from fresh 1Ls to seasoned 3Ls—will get dressed up and come together at the Omni Hotel on the Downtown Mall to attend the annual Public Interest Law Association (PILA) Auction.

The event is promising to be a great one, complete with hors d’oeuvres and with bar services provided by the Omni. There will be a dancefloor with a DJ. There will be items and services available in the silent auction that were donated from a wide variety of sources, including faculty members, current students, student organizations, and local businesses. Professors George Geis and Cale Jaffe will host a live auction starting at 10:30 p.m. to auction off some select special items. There will even be a mystery item in the silent auction which is only revealed after the event to the winning bidder. The auction date is approaching fast, but with less than two weeks until the event, there are still opportunities to get involved and to attend. 

But what exactly is the PILA Auction and how can you get involved? Below are some basic questions with answers to explain this traditional event and how you can help to make an impact on future law students and support service to the public.

What is PILA? PILA is a student-run organization that got its start at UVa in 1981 as a student-funded fellowships sub-committee of the Student Bar Association, which raised enough money to cover expenses for six students to work in public service that summer. Since then, the sub-committee broke away from the SBA and formed its own organization known as the Public Interest Law Association. PILA kept its goal of raising funds to provide law students with grants to allow them to pursue public interest careers during their summers and beyond. The organization also provides networking opportunities and mentorship programs for students interested in careers and opportunities focused on service to the public.

Why is the PILA Auction important? While PILA organizes multiple forms of fundraising, including trivia nights and book sales, the auction is the primary source of funds that PILA raises for the summer grants. PILA has been raising funds for grants for decades, but with support from the Law School Foundation, PILA has now guaranteed that every student who applies for a summer grant to work in public service will receive one. PILA has the responsibility to raise funds for these grants, while the Law School Foundation provides support to help make the grant guarantee a reality. Therefore, the annual auction is just as important as ever to ensure that future UVa Law students will be able to pursue careers in public service and make a much-needed difference in the lives of many.

How do I attend the PILA Auction? Tickets are being sold at a PILA table in Hunton & Williams Hall from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Mon.-Fri. until Monday, October 30. Tickets cost $35, which covers admission to the event and bus transportation from the Law School D3 lot to the Omni Hotel Water Street bus stop from 8:45 p.m. to 12:45 a.m.

How can I get involved with the auction? We encourage everyone to donate to the auction. And you can donate pretty much anything. Examples of items include your own artistic creations, autographed books, or a homemade meal during exam time. Examples of donated services range from babysitting and dog-walking to singing happy birthday to someone or even providing a journal cite check. There are some items and services that are consistent year-to-year, but there are always creative students who come up with unique ways to participate and support PILA. The possibilities are endless. Contracts for donations are available on the bulletin board by the PILA office SL158d and by PILA’s organization board in Hunton & Williams Hall. SBA sent out a copy of the donation contract attached in a school-wide email announcement last week. And PILA volunteers will be tabling in Hunton & Williams this whole week with contracts for donations. The deadline for receiving donations to the PILA Auction is this Friday, October 27.

How can I get involved with the PILA Auction leadership next year? Running the annual auction event is a lot of fun. From getting to work with great people on the auction team to seeing all of the donated items arrive in the PILA office, being involved with the auction is a unique and personally rewarding experience. If you have any interest in organization or event logistics, I highly recommend applying to be on the auction team next year when the PILA board applications are open. There is no requirement that you have to be a PILA grantee. We only ask that you bring a passion for the work of PILA to ensure that our track record of success continues to change the lives of public interest law students and the greater community they serve.

How can I ask more questions? Please reach out to me (Jason Boyle) at jmb3ck@virginia.edu with any questions or concerns. 

We would love to see you at the PILA Auction on November 4 and thank you for supporting PILA and the vital work of our public servants!

---

jmb3ck@virginia.edu

The Art of the Swipe

Kim Hopkin '19
(she/her/hers)
Columns Editor

Fall means Pumpkin Spice Lattes, cozy sweaters, football, and cuffing season—yes, the inevitable search for a relationship before the cold weather and love-life inquiries at family gatherings. But between lengthy reading assignments and softball games, we’re all strapped for time. It only makes sense that we, therefore, search for the most efficient methods to complete all tasks—even dating.1 These days, there are too many dating apps and websites to count, but my favorite for speed and overall results is the original—Tinder. Not the world’s best Tinderella/Tinder-fella? No worries, I’ve got your back.2 Success on Tinder can mean happiness for a moment or a lifetime; you just need to decide what you want from the app and follow simple instructions. Please note that the following advice is not all-inclusive, nor is it black letter law.

You want to find a friend with benefits:

First of all, congratulations on recognizing that you shouldn’t subject anyone else to the mess that is you. Or, for deciding on what you deem a more enlightened, less monogamous lifestyle. Congrats either way because, if you follow the guidelines, you’re about to have a lot of fun. 

First rule of using Tinder for its intended purpose: know your angles. You want to post photos of yourself that showcase your best physical assets. This is priority numero uno. If you secretly hit the gym every morning and have an eight-pack, this is not the time to hold back. Ladies, channel Kim K., use your fridge lighting if necessary, and put your best out there.3 You don’t need to be the hottest person on the app—you just need to be the hottest one who responds above a monosyllabic level. 

If you don’t want to leave anything to chance, I would suggest adding a quote in the About Me section. Preferably something you would feel comfortable yelling out loud at a party. Also, if you don’t want to waste your time declining coffee dates, then I strongly suggest stating your intentions upfront in this section.4 Have fun, and swipe away, my darling!

You want to find a relationship:

Well, congratulations on having your life together enough to consider a relationship. Or maybe your life isn’t together at all, but you recognize that everyone needs love. Either way, you’ve signed up for the road less traveled on Tinder—the search for committed monogamy. 

Your photos should display your personality and be properly clothed. While one or two group photos can be included,5 we should still be able to pick you out easily. Otherwise, we think you are trying to convince us that you’re actually your cute friend—and relationships shouldn’t start with lies. When I swipe, I look at the About Me section for a few hints about your personality. Be aware that you are actively talking to people you are interested in with this section! A quick statement like, “If you want to know about me, ask!” can be a turn-off.6

Including your Instagram can add some legitimacy to your profile as long as you’ve maintained a decently curated aesthetic.7 When you swipe, resist the urge to swipe right on people who’ve set up profiles described in the first section. This isn’t because they’re bad people; it’s because you’d be wasting your time convincing someone that they want a relationship when they don’t. I have faith that you’ll find someone who WANTS to be in a relationship—WITH YOU. 

Unlike those who search for “friends,” your work is just beginning when you get a match. Through possibly the least scientific survey conducted, I’ve concluded that relationships start best when the man is the first to engage in a conversation.8 So, men, think of an opener that will evoke a positive response. While overbearing compliments are creepy, a sincere compliment that doesn’t use the words “cutie” or “lil mama” can be effective. The .gif function can also help show your sense of humor when used within reason.9 I recommend setting up a date within two days to ensure that you won’t have to hire Nev to get to the bottom of why it’s been five years and you still haven’t met your fiancé. Congrats! You already seem so happy it makes me want to puke. 

You want to find your future spouse – right. now. 

Exit Tinder. Click and hold the app until all the apps start to wiggle. Click the small x in the upper left corner. Your chances of happiness have just doubled, if not tripled. 

But don’t worry, I won’t leave you hanging. Relocate to a public area, and engage in an activity that interests you.10 When you find someone who strikes your fancy, and it’s appropriate,11 start a low-threat conversation. Asking someone about their opinion on a topic can garner real dialogue that makes the other person feel like you’re interested without being creepy. This is an iterative process, and you won’t find your spouse right away. But when you do, you’ll be a lot happier and won’t have to brainstorm lies about how you met to tell your parents—win! I’ll see you at your wedding!12

---

knh3zd@virginia.edu

1 Or desperate attempts to date.

2 One-on-one app tutoring costs one free library coffee. What can I say? I love love! 

3 Well, not everything. Save SOMETHING for the imagination because you are literally posting these photos on the internet. 

4 #HereForAGoodTimeNotALongTime works really well for my friends. 

5 “Having friends means I won’t have to entertain you seven nights a week!”

6 “Why did I spend the half a second to click on your picture and read it? This guy is already wasting my time” – LEFT SWIPE.

7 If it’s all just bro memes, I’d suggest deleting the entire account, but at the very least don’t attach it to your dating profile. 

8 All of my gay friends are already in perfect relationships that didn’t use Tinder, so I’m afraid I don’t know the etiquette required. 

9 My ex-boyfriend sent me 10 .gifs in a row that formed a story and a Tupac quote – I mostly responded to get him to stop. So, if she’s the one you want, a creative – you may get lucky. 

10 Drinking counts.

11 If you find yourself yelling from a sidewalk at a stranger—stop. Not appropriate. In fact, if you have to ask, “Is this appropriate?” Spoiler alert: it’s not.

12 If you find yourself yelling from a sidewalk at a stranger—stop. Not appropriate. In fact, if you have to ask, “Is this appropriate?” Spoiler alert: it’s not.

 

Trumpcare Strikes Again

Greg Ranzini '18
(he/him/his)
News Editor

Regular Law Weekly readers may recall my comment back in March that the Affordable Care Act had received a “stay of execution” with the failure of the Trumpcare vote:

It remains to be seen whether Trump will follow through on last week’s threat to abandon the idea should this attempt fail. Even if he were to try again, however, his party is unlikely to play ball for the moment: his “threatened” outcome affords them a vital opportunity to save face. Still, expect them to return to the issue just as soon as their President’s goldfish-like attention span scuttles their tax reform plans.

Gregory Ranzini, Trump and Gorsuch Would Like You to Know that You Do Not Exist, Va. L. Wkly., Mar. 29, 2017, at 2.

Three weeks ago, in the wake of the collapse of the Graham-Cassidy bill and the GOP’s return to agitating for tax cuts, I semi-seriously considered seeing whether the Law Weekly editorial board would let me get away with running a lightly-edited version of that same column, in the manner of The Onion’s recurring mass-shooting response, ‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens. Ah—the heady days of, uh, last week!

This loathsome-but-familiar state of affairs proceeded as scripted until, in the pre-dawn darkness of 2:36 a.m. this past Friday the 13th, a particularly large plaque of β-amyloid in the President’s brain spoke up to remind him that he hates scripts:

Photo courtesy of Twitter.

Photo courtesy of Twitter.

Yep, it’s that other tragic motif in American society: an embittered and disillusioned white man stews in extremist media until he lashes out, hell-bent on killing as many of his perceived enemies as possible before They can take him down.

If you enjoy “pure applesauce” with your free Chick-fil-A, you’re likely to take exception to this metaphorical jiggery-pokery—surely we can’t compare gun violence, which everybody knows is the result of an incomprehensible evil which is completely out of the power of government to mitigate or control, to the spiteful executive orders of a man who has to be periodically talked down from pushing the nuclear button, whose own Secretary of State calls him a “fucking moron”?  After all, it’s not like any mechanism exists by which Congress could—

Never mind.

So let’s look at the numbers. The Affordable Care Act reduced the uninsured rate among nonelderly Americans from a high of 18.2% in 2010 to a low of 10.4% last year. Kaiser Family Foundation, Key Facts about the Uninsured Population (2017), available at https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/. In 2009, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that almost 45,000 deaths per year could be directly attributed to lack of health insurance in the United States. See Wilper, et. al., Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2289, 2294 (Dec. 2009). A 2002 consensus study report by the Institute of Medicine placed the number at about 18,000. Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance, Institute of Medicine, Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late 162 (2002). A researcher for the Urban Institute, applying the IOM’s methodology to newer data, estimated the 2006 as 22,000. Stan Dorn, Uninsured and Dying Because of It: Updating the Institute of Medicine Analysis on the Impact of Uninsurance on Mortality 3. Yes, there is a great deal of variation in these estimates, in large part because it is difficult to pick apart the correlated effects of economic inequality, geography, and racism on trends in insurance availability. But the bottom line is, reversing the ACA will leave a lot more people without insurance and, if you don’t have insurance, it is around 20% to 40% more likely than otherwise that you will die within a year. Beyond a doubt, a great many people will die. Denying that taking away people’s health insurance substantially increases mortality is like denying that climate change exists: the unfeeling, actuarial math doesn’t care who you voted for in 2016.

Donald Trump, by contrast, does care. Indeed, he’s still stinging from his win and looking for ways of punishing his political, racial, and class enemies. So it is that, somewhere between establishing a taskforce to address a completely imaginary wave of voter fraud through voter suppression, issuing a succession of racist orders on immigration, and encouraging his attorney general to roll back what modest gains the Obama Administration made against police brutality, he has found the time to work on dismantling the Affordable Care Act. On his watch, the Department of Health and Human Services has cut open enrollment for exchange plans in half, from ninety to forty-five days, and scheduled twelve-hour healthcare.gov downtimes on each Sunday during that period. They have also slashed the advertising budget for the program, diverted HHS funds to film anti-ACA testimonials, and removed entire categories of public-facing information on the program from their website. Trump’s decision to skive off cost-sharing reduction payments is part of a larger plan to break as much of the ACA as possible and let somebody else clean it up. Or, in Trump’s words: “As I have always said, let ObamaCare fail and then come together and do a great healthcare plan. Stay tuned!”

It is unclear how Congressional Democrats plan on addressing this threat. For the moment, they still seem to be mostly intent on fending off each individual repeal bill as it is introduced, and leaving the President’s executive overreaches to the judiciary. They would be well-served to consider the events of this past week a lesson. When you’re still playing defense against adversaries like Trump and the GOP, celebration is always premature.

---

gpr7qx@virginia.edu

A Moveable Feast

Allie Hemmings '18
(she/her/hers)
Guest Columnist

I discovered the joy of food trucks when I moved to Portland, Oregon for college, and I have been an ardent fan ever since. Food is inexorably tied to memory, with certain foods vividly evoking a moment or place with just one simple taste.1 I have always found food trucks to be particularly poignant creators of this type of recollection, and I could draw you a map of my time in Portland based on the trucks I ate at. Given my long-standing love of food trucks, I am delighted to review some of the trucks that Charlottesville has to offer so you can start your own exercise in culinary cartography.

Côte-Rôtie:

I was intrigued by the initial description of Côte-Rôtie as a yakitori/rotisserie truck. The owners of Côte-Rôtie, Peter and Merrill Robertson, met in culinary school and opened a restaurant together in the Hamptons before moving to Charlottesville in 2015.  The truck has no set menu and the offerings are incredibly diverse—the day we went they were serving sesame chicken and pork empanadas. However, the unifying theme is roasting and grilling (the truck’s name means “roasted slope” in French).  It is kitted out with a custom yakitori grill imported from Japan and a rotisserie. 

The day we visited them they were behind the JAG school,2 but they are regularly at Champion Brewing and other breweries and wineries around Charlottesville. The prices were quite reasonable at $8-12 for a healthy portion and a drink. Everything we ate was delicious, but one drawback was that the vegetarian options were limited due to the small menu.   

I tried the crispy crunchy chicken with Japanese BBQ and sesame noodles as well as the pork empanadas with a mild chili sauce. The chicken was, in fact, both crunchy and crispy and quite delightful. Sesame chicken can be a bit oily or over-seasoned, but this chicken had the perfect blend of flavor with a nice texture. Several of the folks who tried the dish were a big fan of the perfectly cooked chilled noodles and found them quite refreshing given how hot it was that day. My favorite of the two dishes was the empanadas. The pastry was perfect: thin, slightly flaky, and very buttery. It practically melted in your mouth.  The filling was basically smoked pulled pork, which I was 100% here for, but some of the tasters who were expecting more veggies were a bit disappointed.

Overall, the consensus about Côte-Rôtie was overwhelmingly positive. You can keep up with Côte-Rôtie by following them on Facebook, where they post their weekly schedule and menus. 

El Tako Nako:

I had heard about this truck from several friends, and I was eager to check it out for myself.  I totally missed the truck the first time I drove past; it is at 2405 Hydraulic Road, behind the Stonefield Shops in the same parking lot as a laundromat. The gentlemen running the truck were friendly, and the service was lightning fast—we got our order about five minutes after placing it. The prices are also great at $2.50 per taco. For me, three was a good portion. 

The tortillas were OK, and I appreciated that they were doubled up to prevent leaks. The toppings and the meat were where these tacos really shined. Each taco comes topped with cilantro and a blend of caramelized and chopped onions.  I loved the mix of the two types of onion, as the caramelized onion was a nice counterpoint to the slight bite of the chopped onion. The taco also came with your choice of guacamole sauce, green sauce, and red sauce. It is worth pointing out that the guacamole was a true sauce, not a dip, but it added a lovely, almost creamy flavor to the tacos. I personally love salsa made with tomatillos, so the green sauce was perfect for me.  My friends with a slightly higher spice tolerance described the red sauce as “optimally spicy.”

We tried the pollo, asada, and pastor taco fillings. Chicken can so easily be too dry, so I was really pleased with how moist the pollo taco was.  Likewise, the asada taco was tender and flavorful. My favorite was probably the pastor. The meat itself had a nice kick to it, and was well seasoned. I was disappointed that they were out of the beef cheek filling, as the reviews about it online had been very positive. 

La Michoacana is probably still going to be my go-to for tacos in Charlottesville, but I would definitely go back to El Tako Nako. Thank you to Ashley Finger, Katarina Siefkas, Hannah Sowell, Jonathan Babcock, Cory Sagduyu, and Natasha Pereira for agreeing to be guinea pigs and giving me their feedback. 

---

ajh3qc@virginia.edu

1 I’m not making this up, see “The Omnivorous Mind” by John Allen.

2 Side Note – the JAG school has food trucks come every few weeks when there are special seminars. All the JAGs we talked to were super friendly, and encouraged us to come over to check out the food trucks anytime. 

 

Symposium to Tackle Environmental Federalism

Tyler Jerrell '18
(he/him/his)
Guest Columnist

On January 1, 1970, Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law.  NEPA’s stated purpose was to “declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment . . . .”  

NEPA was not the first federal law to address environmental concerns.  The Conservation movement won federal legislative victories in the early 20th century through the establishment of national parks and passage of land protection laws like the Antiquities Act.  Additionally, earlier laws such as the first Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 brought regulations to specific environmental concerns in a more piecemeal fashion.  

In contrast to these previous laws’ limitations, NEPA’s broader policy declaration would become the beginning of a series of environmental controls by the federal government throughout the 1970s, including creation by executive order of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, amendments to the Clean Air Act in both 1970 and 1977, and passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  These laws, and the popular environmental movements that supported them, helped promote a paradigm of environmentalism that focused on strong, uniform federal protections that applied throughout the country.

Since the beginning of this year, however, the new administration has signaled through rhetoric and action that it will move away from this paradigm and towards deregulation of federal environmental protections.  In only its second executive order, issued on January 24, the administration directed federal review and approval of the Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipelines.  Two months later, a March 28 executive order emphasized deregulation of energy development on federal lands.  This was followed later, in June, by the public announcement to withdraw the United States from the climate goals of the Paris Agreement.  More recently, the EPA announced its intention to repeal the 2014 Clean Power Plan. 

In response to these policies, other groups have pledged to uphold environmental protections in the absence of federal oversight.  Attempts to deregulate the energy sector are being met with legal challenges by non-profit groups and are being opposed by some state and local governments.  Additionally, governors of fourteen states, including Virginia, have joined the bipartisan United States Climate Alliance and, together with pledges from nine other states, remain committed to fulfilling the aspirations of the Paris Agreement.  

Meanwhile, private businesses have risen to satisfy consumer demands for renewable energy despite the absence of federal regulatory mandates to do so.  Walmart’s “Project Gigaton,” announced in April, aims to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of its supply chain, while Facebook recently announced plans to construct a datacenter in Henrico County that will rely on renewable energy for its operation.

Although the success and impact of these actions remains to be seen, they nevertheless lead one to ask: if state and local governments, with the cooperation of non-profits and private business, could have the means and capability to protect the environment on their own, would federal laws and regulations toward that same end be necessary?  

On Thursday, October 19, the Virginia Environmental Law Journal will host its symposium Whose Mess Is It? Federalism and Environmental Regulation in a New Political Climate to consider this potential paradigm shift through issues that impact closer to home.  

One panel, co-sponsored by the, will focus on the Center for Oceans Law and Policy Chesapeake Bay Program, an agreement between six states, the EPA, and the District of Columbia to cooperate on reducing the pollution of the waters feeding the Chesapeake Bay.  The panel will examine how the program’s specific requirements, including the role played by the EPA, and successes have varied since it was first created in 1983.

A second panel, co-sponsored by the Virginia Environmental Law Forum, will discuss the federal leasing and exploration of offshore fossil fuel resources.  While this program occurs under federal waters, as was seen by the 2010 BP oil spill, negative externalities associated with environmental degradation are felt most acutely on state-controlled coasts.  Coastal cities and states in the southeast have seen growing opposition to expanding these leases as the environmental and economic impacts of offshore energy development become more fully known.

A final roundtable will bring together legal scholars to discuss these issues: Caroline Cecot of the Antonin Scalia Law School, Michael Livermore of the University of Virginia School of Law, and Hannah Wiseman of the Florida State University College of Law.  These scholars will build on prior topics as well as the history, politics, and policy of environmentalism and federalism in order to consider the most effective role the federal government should play in protecting the environment.

Lunch will be provided by Brazos Tacos.

---

tmj3aw@virginia.edu

ABA Presents: Marshall

Jenna Goldman '18
(she/her/hers)
Editor-in-Chief

What else could possibly be discovered about the nation’s most famous lawyer? Turns out, quite a lot.1

The American Bar Association and Open Road Films sponsored an exclusive pre-screening of Marshall for UVa Law students and faculty at the Regal Stonefield in Charlottesville last Thursday, September 14. The film, directed by Reginald Hudlin, writer of Marvel’s Who is the Black Panther? and producer of Django Unchained, the film has been dubbed a “biographical thriller” about Justice Thurgood Marshall’s early days as a criminal trial lawyer for the NAACP.   

Chadwick Boseman portrays Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chadwick Boseman portrays Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chadwick Boseman is tasked with playing a suave, energetic Marshall, by now well seasoned in portraying larger-than-life historical figures (he played Jackie Robinson in the 2013 film, 42, and James Brown in Get on Up in 2014). Boseman also played T’Challa/Black Panther in Captain America: Civil War and will reprise the role in the 2018 film The Black Panther.

The movie centers on one criminal case assigned to Marshall as a 32-year-old while working for the financially struggling NAACP, which is searching for a show-stopping win to attract high profile donors. 

In Connecticut v. Spell, Marshall is tasked with defending a black chauffeur named Joseph Spell (played by Sterling K. Brown, who gives a gut-wrenching testimony on the stand—so good I wished Brown was given more of a speaking role). Spell is accused of sexual assault and attempted murder by his white, socialite employer named Eleanor Strubing (the dark, “damsel in distress” played by Kate Hudson) in Greenwich, Connecticut. 

The 1941 case was one of the most scandalous of the time, and coverage of the case shared the front pages of The New York Times with the start of the Second World War. The notoriety of the case sent shockwaves through the white upper class in the North, and cost black domestic workers their jobs.

The NAACP sends Marshall to Bridgeport where fumbling Connecticut attorney Sam Friedman—played by Josh Gad—reluctantly agrees to sponsor him for special admittance to the Connecticut bar. In a dramatic, not entirely shocking turn of events, the judge merely allows Marshall to act as second seat, and bars him from speaking at trial. An exasperated Friedman, who now is on the hook to defend Spell, exclaims, “But Mr. Marshall just argued before the United States Supreme Court!” To which the judge responds, “I do not see how that is pertinent to this case.”

Predictably, the vicious, slick-haired prosecutor on the case—played manically by Dan Stevens—is preparing for a Senate run, and the judge—stoically played by James Cromwell—is an old law partner of the prosecutor’s father. Even outside the Jim Crow South, the buddy-buddy Connecticut bar and the alleged rape of a white woman make Bridgeport seem awfully like Birmingham. The racism is apparent, yet subverted, perhaps in a statement to viewers about the current state of this country. 

The choice to highlight this case, where one of the most famous orators of the century is not allowed to utter a single word at trial, was a surprising one. As the story unfolds it becomes clear that the film was meant to focus on the brilliance of Marshall’s trial strategy, a strategy that enthralled our audience of law students.

For those generally reluctant to watch courtroom dramas because of an obsession with searching for errors in criminal procedure, fear not. Prominent Connecticut trial lawyer Michael Koskoff wrote the screenplay with help from his son, Jacob Koskoff (screenwriter for the 2015 film adaptation of Macbeth). Koskoff has handled major race discrimination cases in Bridgeport and New Haven, and at age seventy-three, he decided to bring the story of this major Connecticut case to the world. 

Hudlin directed the film with all of the excitement and fervor of a classic superhero movie. The story had a sniveling villain, a plain-clothes savior (I wouldn’t have been surprised if Marshall tore open his dress shirt to reveal a giant “S” and cape),2 and a trusty sidekick3 out to right the injustices in a town that doesn’t see the impending storm forming around them. This courtroom thriller keeps viewers on the edge of their seats with a twisting plot, from voir dire to verdict.   

The film was more than just legalese; it pays homage beautifully to the era in which it was set (from the roaring music to the fabulous cars—one of which plays an important role in the trial). In a side scene, real-life friends Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston make an appearance in a dazzling New York City jazz bar. The scene was not necessarily in furtherance of the greater plotline, but it provided a glimpse into Marshall’s exciting outside-the-courtroom life. 

Outside of mild flirtations and a couple of stiff drinks, Marshall’s personal life is cast in a decidedly angelic light, as the film focuses almost exclusively on his legal practice. And I’m glad it did: Marshall’s brilliant lawyering provided plenty of intrigue and drama.  

As far as critique, I was left wanting many of the actors to go just one step further in their portrayal of the striking figures. Boseman had some large, frankly impossible, shoes to fill. To his credit, during the major climactic moments Boseman unleashed Marshall’s power and presence, but at other points he seemed reluctant to fully step into the part. Similarly, the conflicted Hudson could have been even nastier on the stand, and the conniving prosecutor could have been . . . more conniving. 

Casting Gad, best known for voicing Olaf the snowman in Frozen, was an interesting choice. He stepped into the dramatic role and captured the essence of a bumbling new lawyer. I was convinced by his performance most of all. 

However, my complaints are as follows: First, after researching4 further, I am not sure Friedman was given enough credit as an attorney in his own right. If historical accuracy was not the point and his character was meant to be a foil to the impressively skilled Marshall, then I concede. But Samuel Friedman was a far more accomplished lawyer, and a more willing participant, than the tongue-tied and insecure Gad portrayed him to be.

Second, and no offense to Gad, but generally Hollywood casts actors who are better looking than the real-life character; the real Samuel Friedman was actually a very handsome and slender man (I wondered if the physical choice to cast Gad was to play up a certain stereotype—but I digress). 

The partnership between the Jewish immigrant Friedman and the black, self-made Marshall, both ostracized by their profession, is one that was critical both during the Civil Rights Era and now—as protesters marched through Charlottesville they chanted racist and anti-Semitic slurs interchangeably. Marshall evokes language from the Torah and compared their shared struggles to convince Friedman to take the case. The seemingly rag-tag duo drives home an important point. 

Despite my critiques, I not only enjoyed the movie for the entertainment (I cannot emphasize the excitement in the film enough), but I felt the story was adeptly told at just the right time. There were so many components and comparisons to chew on; the theater was abuzz with discussion after the curtain fell. I will likely see the movie again, and I look forward to hearing the interviews and analysis when the film is officially released on October 13, 2017. 

---

jmg3db@virginia.edu

1 I won’t spoil the ending, but the statute of limitations on spoilers of a case decided in 1941 has probably passed. 

2 I am aware that Superman is a DC comic, thanks for asking.

3 Id. 

4 https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2005/feature_sharfstein_marapr05.msp

 

The Sad Decline of Nelson Mandela’s Party

Jansen VanderMeulen '19
(he/him/his)
Executive Editor

In April of this year, South African President Jacob Zuma survived a vote of no confidence in the National Assembly, the lower house of the Parliament of South Africa. Mr. Zuma is no stranger to votes of no confidence; he has now survived eight since his election to the presidency in 2009. Throughout his political career, Mr. Zuma has been dogged by an unceasing stream of allegations of impropriety and corruption. Claims including ones of rape, arms dealing, use of taxpayer money for home improvements, and illegal business collaboration with the shadowy Gupta brothers.1 A few weeks prior to his election in 2009, prosecutors dropped 786 counts of corruption against Mr. Zuma, though South African courts have since ordered that at least some of the counts should be reinstated.2

Photo courtesy of The United States Department of State.

Photo courtesy of The United States Department of State.

How, in a period of less than twenty years’ time, did South Africa’s presidency go from being occupied by the late statesman and Nobel laureate Nelson Mandela to its degradation under Mr. Zuma? The answer lies with the state of the party Messrs. Zuma and Mandela share: the African National Congress (ANC), a left-wing, African nationalist party with support from South Africa’s Communist Party but a moderate governing record. The ANC, outlawed throughout much of the apartheid regime, negotiated an end to the state-sanctioned regime of segregation and black disenfranchisement with the government of State President F.W. de Klerk in the early ’90s, and went on to win South Africa’s first free elections in 1994 with nearly 63% of the vote. Freed from the embargoes and condemnation that haunted South Africa prior to desegregation, the nation’s economy boomed throughout the ’90s and the first decade of the 2000s.3 The South African people rewarded the ANC with increased parliamentary majorities every election until 2009. 

The ANC also benefited from a divided opposition. In the election of 1994, Mr. Mandela’s main opponent was Mr. de Klerk’s National Party, the main party of government during the apartheid era. After those elections, in which Mr. de Klerk took around 20% of the vote, the National Party’s vote share steadily declined until it disbanded in 2005. In its place rose an opposition split mostly between the centrist, liberal, primarily white Democratic Alliance (DA) and, in recent years, the firebrand leftist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), led by ex-ANC youth-wing leader Julius Malema, who was once convicted of inciting racial hatred for singing a song encouraging the killing of white South Africans.4 Earning just shy of 70% of the vote in the 2005 general election, the ANC reached the peak of its power, winning enough seats to unilaterally amend the Constitution.

The story since then has been one of graft and decline. A fight between Thabo Mbeki—Mr. Zuma’s predecessor—and Mr. Zuma, then Deputy President, led to Mr. Mbeki’s early resignation and triggered allegations that the South African government’s charges against Mr. Zuma were politically motivated. Mr. Zuma’s election in 2009 was the first time since the end of apartheid that the ANC’s percentage of the vote declined from the prior election. It declined further in 2014, as the ANC sunk from nearly 66% of the vote to just over 62%, and more dramatically in the municipal elections of 2016, in which the ANC received less than 54% of the vote. The DA, traditionally confined to Cape Town and its Western Cape province, gained municipal control of Johannesburg, Tshwane (which contains South Africa’s executive capital, Pretoria), and Nelson Mandela Bay, three of South Africa’s largest municipal areas. The EFF, meanwhile, made its debut with more than 8% of the vote, entering into municipal coalitions with the DA against the ANC across the country despite their ideological differences.

While the ANC has continued to bleed support, the opposition has to contend with a host of hurdles that will prevent it from dislodging Mr. Zuma’s party for the foreseeable future. First, the country’s history of racial divisions remains contentious and visceral. The DA is a primarily white party—though it is now led by a black man, Mmusi Maimane—and despite roots in the anti-apartheid movement,5 it has struggled to win the votes of black South Africans.6 After its 2016 municipal breakthrough, the party was mired in controversy when its former leader, Western Cape province Premier Helen Zille, was sharply criticized for arguing in a tweet that the legacy of colonialism was not “ONLY bad,” noting South Africa’s “independent judiciary, transport infrastructure, piped water, etc.,” comments for which she later apologized and was suspended from all party leadership positions.7

The EFF, meanwhile, is thought to have limited appeal under Mr. Malema’s bombastic leadership. Mr. Malema was once a close ally of Mr. Zuma; when Mr. Zuma was accused of rape, Mr. Malema brought up the alleged victim’s “breakfast and taxi money” to show that she had “a nice time,”8 comments which earned him a conviction under South African hate speech laws. But he turned against Mr. Zuma, and was expelled from the party after another hate crime conviction. The firebrand Marxist typically dons a red beret, and is known to engage in heated shouting on the floor of South Africa’s National Assembly. While he has been successful in peeling off support from the ANC’s left, and his alliance with the DA shows an unexpected pragmatism, it is difficult to conceive of a man who advocates for the nationalization of South African industry9 and the Zimbabwe-style expropriation of white-owned property10 being elected to the South African presidency.

As Mr. Zuma approaches the ten-year limit placed on South African presidents, the ANC faces a crossroads: the leadership of the ANC will likely come down to Mr. Zuma’s Deputy President, Cyril Ramaphosa, and Mr. Zuma’s ex-wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma (Mr. Zuma, a polygamist, is currently married to four women, with two additional ex-wives, including Ms. Dlamini-Zuma). If Ms. Dlamini-Zuma, an ally of her former husband, wins the leadership with Mr. Zuma’s backing, the party can expect to lose more ground on its right to the DA in the cities, and more to the EFF in its rural heartlands. Even short of losing power, the ANC presents western democracies with a cautionary tale about parties in power for too long. If the party of Mandela’s triumph can wither and slink into the party of Zuma’s shame, no political party is exempt from the one immutable rule in democratic politics: no party wins power forever.

---

jmv5af@virginia.edu

1 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/political-scandals-president-zuma-survived-170808082727236.html

2 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-17450447

3 http://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/south-africa/gdp

4 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/world/africa/13southafrica.html?mcubz=0

5 http://www.sahistory.org.za/organisations/democratic-alliance-da

6 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-election-race-analysis/anc-shaken-to-core-as-south-african-voters-look-beyond-race-idUSKCN10G1BJ

7 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40258949

8  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-14718226

9 https://mg.co.za/article/2010-02-19-malema-nationalisation-will-become-anc-policy

10 https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-03-01-malema-if-you-see-a-beautiful-piece-of-land-take-it/#.WbYM_siGM2w

 

Hunkered Down for Irma

Hannah Fraher '19
Guest Columnist

Tampa, Florida is my hometown. My family still lives there, so when I saw the sudden westward shift of Hurricane Irma on the Friday before it made landfall in the U.S., I was afraid. Afraid for my family, afraid for my childhood home, and afraid for the city I love most. Late that night, I purchased a one-way ticket home for Saturday morning, to be with my family, help them prepare, and assist with the impending aftermath. I then ran down to the Wal-Mart in Charlottesville and bought supplies, as Tampa had effectively been cleared out since the Wednesday prior, including duct tape, walkie-talkies, a weather radio, and landline phones. 

Photo courtesy of Hannah Fraher. 

Photo courtesy of Hannah Fraher. 

Upon flying in Saturday, I was immediately put to work covering all the windows of our home and moving valuables and breakables to inner hallways in case the windows didn’t hold and wind tore through the house. We cleared out the closet under our stairs and set it up to be as comfortable as possible in case we didn’t feel safe sleeping upstairs. We stocked the pantry with canned and boxed foods that didn’t need to be cooked before eating, and froze water-filled baggies in order to have as much ice as possible – fully expecting that we would lose power, and possibly for many days. I filled every jar and jug I could find with water, having been warned of the likelihood that we could lose sewer service and be put under a boil-water ban. 

After all of our preparing we sat back and watched and waited for Irma to arrive. By Saturday night the eye of the hurricane was projected to pass right over our house as a Category Three the following evening, which means sustained winds of up to 130 miles per hour. Reports also came flooding in around that time of the devastation in the eastern Caribbean, and we began to lose communication with the Florida Keys, as the hurricane was beginning its landfall in the US. We didn’t get much sleep that night.

The next day, we were glued to the television, watching the bi-hourly updates from the hurricane center on the latest projected path. As the day progressed, the hurricane swerved a bit east and began to unravel. By the time the hurricane got to Tampa, it was a Category One. We slept soundly through the night and awoke to mostly superficial damage in our neighborhood. Some large limbs fell from the tree next to my house and scraped the façade on the way down, but there was no major damage done. Within a day, landscapers had cleaned up all of the branches and leaves strewn about, and our neighborhood appeared to be back to normal. 

Photo courtesy of Hannah Fraher. 

Photo courtesy of Hannah Fraher. 

We were lucky. Many people throughout Florida are still without power and water. Some of them live just a few minutes down the road from my family. Our house had never lived through a hurricane before, and stood up well on this occasion. Even though my family has lived in Florida for more than thirty years, none of them had ever lived through a hurricane before, and they also stood up well. 

People will complain that Hurricane Irma was over-hyped, since the actual outcome wasn’t nearly as bad as projected for Florida, but it’s better to be safe than sorry. This hurricane broke several records, and there are still several weeks left in hurricane season this year. The worst may still be yet to come.

 

---

hef8ep@virginia.edu

 

The Bear Necessities

Jason Boyle '18
(he/him/his)
Guest Columnist

As humidity levels drop and the late summer days become cooler, this time of year is perfect for taking full advantage of all the natural environments that Virginia has to offer. Whether you choose to hike Old Rag Mountain in Shenandoah National Park or just go for a leisurely stroll on scenic Old Ivy Road, there is a lot of natural beauty all around us to enjoy. However, we must always be wary of the other natural inhabitants that share these areas. For example, Virginia is home to approximately 6,000 black bears and, according to the National Park Service (NPS), that number is increasing. Human encounters with bears in Virginia are rare, but they are becoming more common as the populations of both bears and humans rise, so I want to provide some tips from the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare everyone in case they encounter a black bear up close.

Photo courtesy of www.bearmageddonnews.com

Photo courtesy of www.bearmageddonnews.com

Avoid bears: Bears tend to avoid humans, so if you are hiking and want to avoid a bear, you can try to make your presence known by making continuous noise, such as speaking aloud. You can try to carry a bear bell, but the actual effectiveness of bear bells is a questionable.

Avoid bear cubs: Mother bears are very protective of their cubs and will attack if they perceive you as a potential threat. Never stand between a cub and its mother.

Hike in groups, if possible: According to the NPS, bears are less likely to approach a group of people, so there is strength in numbers. 

Stay calm: If a bear is focused on you and not running away, it may simply be curious. Try talking to the bear in a low, calm voice to show that you are a human and not its usual prey. Remember that bears will sometimes bluff that they will attack by pretending to charge, then turning away to leave the area.

Make yourself look larger: You should make yourself look taller by standing up and spreading out your arms. Try standing on higher ground or a fallen tree.

Leave slowly: If the bear is stationary, move away sideways in a calm and slow manner so that you can keep an eye on the bear and reduce your chance of tripping. DO NOT RUN. Bears can run as fast as a horse and they have a natural instinct to chase a fleeing object. Also, keep in mind that black bears can climb trees.

Carry Bear Spray: The NPS advises hikers in bear country to purchase an EPA-approved bear spray and learn how to use it properly before hiking. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, data has confirmed that bear spray is the most effective tool to deter a charging bear and has proven to be more effective than using a gun. Personally, I carry Frontiersman Bear Spray, but fortunately have not had to use it, so I can’t personally speak to the effectiveness of that brand.

If you are attacked by a bear, it is important to know if it is a black bear or a brown/grizzly bear because the NPS advises different reactions for attacks by each species. If you encounter a bear in Virginia, it will undoubtedly be a black bear since grizzlies do not live anywhere around here. Black bears may appear as a shade of brown, but can be identified by their tall ears as opposed to the smaller, flatter ears of grizzlies. Black bears also lack the distinctive shoulder hump of grizzly bears.

If attacked by a black bear: the NPS advises that you NOT play dead. Instead, try to escape and, as a last resort, fight back with anything you can find, including your fists and feet. Aim for the bear’s face and muzzle.

If attacked by a grizzly bear: DO play dead, by lying face down on the ground with your hands clasped over your neck. Try to keep your legs wide so the bear cannot turn you over. For grizzlies, fighting back can make them more aggressive. Remain still until the bear has left the area. If the attack persists, then fight back.

But as a reminder, bear encounters are rare and attacks are even rarer. Bears are really fascinating, well-adapted animals and they are fun to watch from a safe distance (at least 100 yards) in their natural habitat. With these tips in mind, you can enjoy the best nature that Virginia has to offer in safety. And remember to always carry that bear spray.

---

jmb3ck@virginia.edu

Toward Resilience in the Face of Hate

Baruch Nutovic '19
(he/him/his)
Guest Columnist

When I was a growing up, I had a recurring nightmare. I was on a chaotic, cramped, frightening train ride to some unknown, yet terrifying destination. I always woke up, deeply distressed, before I got there. 

At first, my parents did not know what to make of the dreams. Then, it dawned on them: my grandmother’s stories. 

She had been deported to Auschwitz, the Nazis’ largest concentration camp, with her family in the spring of 1944. After days in a cramped cattle car without food or water, they arrived. One of her brothers was shot in front of her. Her younger brother, after whom my brother is named, was sent with her parents to the gas chambers. I grew up hearing her stories. 

I can only imagine what she’d say if she were alive to hear of white supremacists marching by the thousands through the streets where I live. 

That my wife and I were going downtown to join the counter-protests was never in question. It was a surreal scene. White supremacists in militia outfits with military gear.  David Duke, former head of the KKK, spewing hate. People wearing shirts quoting Hitler, calling for the subjugation of black people. Fights breaking out in the streets between the white supremacists and Antifa. It felt like we had been transported back in time, as though we were in the old Jim Crow South or 1930s Germany. Charlottesville was not the Charlottesville we know and love on that weekend. 

But it is precisely that which gives me solace. That weekend was the antithesis of what Charlottesville is about. We believe in equality for people of every race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation. We are tolerant of political differences and stand for reasoned debate in a spirit of goodwill. Charlottesville’s great coming-together after the Unite the Right rally, the candlelight vigil on the Lawn, demonstrated our unity in the face of hate. 

I’m also heartened by the size of the Unite the Right rally. I don’t want to be misunderstood; a few thousand white supremacists marching through Charlottesville’s streets is a few thousand too many. But when you compare the rally, billed as the largest hate rally in America for decades, to the estimated crowd of 1.8 million at Barack Obama’s inauguration, the contemptible weakness of the white supremacist movement comes into focus. This is a small movement at the fringes of society, almost universally despised, condemned by the leadership of both major political parties. Even our vacillator-in-chief, though he managed to create the perception of ambiguity with his bumbling response, condemned them. The media spotlight that the white supremacists garner may make them seem powerful, but in reality, their movement is politically diminutive.

Their aim is to terrorize us and create a false perception of strength. The best insult we can pay them is to refuse to be intimidated or change the way we do business, except insofar as we reaffirm our core values as a community. 

During the chaos that followed the dispersal of the rally, I was distraught to find Antifa extremists beating people up, as they have done at similar counter-protests across the country in recent months. We need to exorcise from our ranks those who would cede any part of the moral high ground and disregard the great Martin Luther King, Jr.’s example of nonviolence. Antifa extremism provides recruiting material for the alt-right and makes it much harder to persuade white supremacists of the error of their ways. 

We should also not allow the white supremacists to appropriate the debate over historic monuments. Before the white supremacists inserted themselves into the conversation, the debate was a respectful dialogue between people of good will on both sides, a model for the rest of the South to follow as it reckons with its tragic past. 

At its core, the divide on the monuments is one of perception. To some, the monuments are a statement of white supremacy, a relic of the South’s evil Jim Crow history. To others, the monuments are a tribute to those who fought with valor on behalf of their home, hearth, and state; a set of fixtures in the landscape that evoke a mystical sense of the region’s history, not the evils of racism. So it’s no surprise that the former group passionately believes the monuments must go, and the latter that they must stay. The white supremacists should be viewed as extraneous to this debate and should not be allowed to influence it. 

If we’re to be true to Charlottesville values, we must work to bridge this divide and reach a shared understanding on what the monuments mean, rather than bulldozing opposition. The main reason our country is so polarized, hateful, and divided is that people of good will have lost the capacity to understand and respect those with whom they disagree. Those seeking to take the monuments down are not on an Orwellian mission to destroy history, and most of those in opposition disagree for legitimate reasons. 

Irrespective of how one feels about historic monuments, I think all can agree that the South needs more monuments marking milestones in its history of integration. We should never forget that the University of Virginia was once a segregated institution. It’s high time the Law School reckoned with its Jim Crow past and honored the trailblazers who broke the color barrier here. Gregory Swanson, the first black UVa law student, and John F. Merchant, the first black UVa law graduate, merit large, prominent monuments on our campus. I can’t think of a better rebuke to the white supremacists. 

Ultimately, I don’t feel the same distress I did when I was having those nightmares. I take heart from the currents of history. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” The white supremacists will go the way of the dinosaurs if we fight the good fight, as I know we will. The future belongs to us.

---

byn9bv@virginia.edu

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DACA: A Perspective

Robbie Pomeroy '19
(he/him/his)
Guest Columnist

I am deeply saddened by the decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Eliminating this protection affects thousands of individuals of different colors, creeds and countries of origin living in the United States. The xenophobia of this administration are going to ruin lives and tear apart families. 

Legal and policy reasons aside, this decision is distasteful on the most basic human level. Many of the people I know who were DACA recipients know no other country. Their only language is English. They go to school and have friends and family in the States. They have dreams and aspirations as big and bold as the ones each of us have here at UVa. They are your neighbors and your classmates. They are just as American as you and I. This administration is creating dividing lines where none should exist. 

The only difference between a DACA recipient and me is the fact that they were born in a different country. They were brought to this country when they were too young to have a choice in the matter. Many of them had no idea what it even meant to have papers or not. Growing up, they were just like any other person in school. The people affected by this decision are human beings who are American at their core.

We also should not blame the parents of childhood immigrants to this country. The reasons people choose to relocate their families to the United States are abundant. In my experience, the reason has almost always been for the opportunity to pursue the American Dream. Parents do anything for their children, and I do not fault anyone for making the decision to immigrate to the United States as an undocumented person. It is a deeply personal decision and a tough one. You have to leave everything behind, potentially risking your life, to overcome the barriers (both physical and otherwise) of getting into the country. And once you make it to the U.S., the barriers to becoming a part of society are still there. It’s not a path for the faint of heart, and I respect those who make the decision for the betterment of their families.

My mother was born in Guadalajara, Mexico. When she immigrated to the United States with my uncle and grandmother as a young child, it was as an undocumented immigrant. Eventually she became a naturalized citizen, but she went to school for several years in California without documentation. My grandmother had a tax-paying job at a phone company and my mother and uncle went to school just like anyone else. Obviously, this was all decades before DACA was ever even contemplated, but imagining these circumstances under the present climate in America, I begin to wonder what would have made my mother so different than everyone around her or why someone would want to create a line barring her from going to school or participating in society.

Before DACA, people living as undocumented immigrants had to hide in the shadows. They couldn’t bring attention to themselves because they feared for the safety of their families. DACA was an Obama-era program that allowed recipients to participate in society without fear that harm would come to them or their families. It gave people hope and a way to achieve goals and dreams that did not exist before the program.

The decision to end the program means there are so many things we need to do. Thousands of people need to renew their DACA benefits by October 5th. We have a call to action to contact our representatives in Congress to create legislation that will save the lives of all of these people. But both of these measures are short-term solutions for a problem that is much larger. For those lucky enough to be able to renew, the reprieve is only two years long. And while legislation codifying a DACA-like program would be helpful, it does not solve the underlying problem—the necessity of immigration reform in this country. The barriers to entry are severe and targeted. While we can and should participate in attempts the rectify this decision, we also need to advocate for more comprehensive immigration reform. 

---

rap3fa@virginia.edu

Reflections on August 12 Violence

Matt Johnson (he/him/his) '19
Guest Contributor

August 12, 2017: a day burned into the collective consciousness of every student, faculty, and alumni of UVa for reasons none of us wanted. Seeing hate and anger flow through the streets of Charlottesville as we saw places of intimate familiarity splashed across national news media felt like a sobering reminder of the worst in people in direct clash with what actually makes America great. Nothing will erase those images, those emotions, and those thoughts of helpless angst from our memories, and nor should they be erased. We need to carry the weight of those memories with somber attitudes, and more importantly, perseverant resolve to respond to the hate and anger with a stern message of love and rejection of the hateful rhetoric and violent extremism that overtook our quaint college town.

It is my natural inclination to try to derive from tragic events like this some sort of meaning and some sort of way to move forward and help effect change. In my best intentions, I want to help improve our community and on our society. I don’t want to do that in this aftermath. While I intend to take every action I see necessary to counter the hateful rhetoric of the alt-right and white nationalist movement, that’s not what I believe my society needs from me in this historical moment. So I won’t be standing up to shout at the top of my lungs with my thoughts on what needs to be done. I won’t be talking anyone’s ear off on my personal thoughts on the matter. Any voice championing love and respect is a welcome addition to the discourse, but there will be no shortage of those voices who can say it more eloquently, forcefully, and with greater effect than I ever could. I want to respect where I stand in this world and respect those being disparately affected by this movement and these times of fear and discord. So instead of providing my voice to a cause, I will go one step further and offer the most open of ear, heart, and mind to those who most deserve to have a voice against this hate. Those who have been marginalized and targeted in all of this political hate have something they’ve too often felt they have been deprived of: a willing audience to hear their thoughts, their emotions, and their pain. I am a sponge, please bring it on.

I always felt I had a pretty strong moral compass and that I generally offered measured, thoughtful responses to assaults on political and cultural ideologies, but now is no longer the time for me to retreat to my resolution or to contextualize my understanding of the state of racial and cultural divide in our country with my own experiences. I want to do everything in my power to personally contextualize understanding the structural issues at play with the experiences of those who understand it best: those being marginalized.

Nothing good happened on August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville when hate descended on our homes. But so much good can grow from the ashes of that travesty that reminds all of us about what it means to positively engage each other in ways such that we all learn from one another.

---

msj2fb@virginia.edu

Summer Stories: Roger T. Dean

Roger T. Dean (he/him/his) '19
Guest Contributor

Guess what I did this summer?

I want to first start off by saying welcome to the new class of 1Ls. You have embarked on a worthwhile journey to become a legal advocate at a wonderful institution of higher learning. The University of Virginia School of Law and I both welcome you. Now, I will get straight to the point of this article. 

You will never guess what I did this past summer. Go on, guess. I will give you three guesses. If I told you already, you don’t get to guess. I mean you do, but you don’t win. All right, got your guesses? All wrong. All of them. I mean, you actually could have gotten it, but I’m going to tell you anyway. This summer, I stayed with some of my friends from undergrad (George Mason University) while I interned at the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO – DC). 

According to their website, 

The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is a unique one among the 94 United States Attorney Offices across the nation and its territories by virtue of its size and its varied responsibilities. Shockingly, for an area so small, it is the largest United States Attorney’s Office. It has over 350 Assistant United States Attorneys and over 350 support staff. The size of this Office is the result of the breadth of the responsibility for criminal law enforcement and the ideal location in the nation’s capital. USAO – DC is responsible not only for the prosecution of all federal crimes in the District, but also for the prosecution of all serious local crime committed by adults in the District of Columbia. On the civil side, the USAO – DC represents the United States and its departments and agencies in civil proceedings filed in federal court in the District of Columbia. As the principal prosecutor for all criminal offenses in this jurisdiction, and as the principal litigator for the United States in the nation’s capital, the Office offers extensive litigation experience before over 100 judges in the federal and local courts and unique opportunities for important public service. 

I know—pretty fancy, right? During my time there, I was in the homicide division. In D.C., there are two courts in which this office works: the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the federal trial court) and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, (the local courthouse). It was also the courthouse my supervising attorneys practiced in every day. As an office, we were in court every day for something. There are a lot of murders that happen in the district. I was unaware of that. I had no clue. I did not know murder was so prevalent in such a small area. 

There were over 130 interns in the intern office and fifteen on my floor. There were a couple of UVa Law students in my division and in my office this summer. You can ask around and get different feedback, but my experience was once-in-a-lifetime. I loved my experience. I had the opportunity to do some solid legal research and writing. I researched and drafted a response to a defense motion for the government arguing that a drug addict’s identification of an illicit substance should be accepted as expert testimony. The question presented was: “Would it be appropriate for the court to accept the government’s request to qualify a drug user as an expert witness in a trial for identification purposes of crack cocaine?” The short answer was: “Yes. It is appropriate as it has been done in other jurisdictions. There is legal support for the decision, and it wouldn’t be overturned on appeal. It is clearly aligned with United States v. Bradley, 165 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 1999) in which the court says “[t]his just makes common sense because those who smoke, buy, or sell this stuff are the real experts on what is crack.” 

 Long story short, there was some crack that was supposed to be found and field tested, but it couldn’t be tested or retrieved because it was consumed by the government’s witness. The witness was there for the purpose of identifying the substance. In the oral argument, the judge stated she was inclined to agree with the government’s. Similarly, I analyzed precedent and wrote a response opposing a motion to sever two homicide trials, arguing that joinder was appropriate given the overlapping involvement of the defendant, weapon, and witnesses. I did the normal and expected things like review, analyze, and synthesize witness interview tapes for trial attorney, and I also observed courtroom proceedings including trials, hearings, and appellate arguments. Last, but definitely not least, I went to a medical examiner’s office. The other interns and I were able to learn about the history of the Baltimore Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the field of study. We got to see how they train examiners as well as the ins and outs of the office. More importantly, we got to see autopsies. They are not like what you see on TV. In Baltimore, at least, there is a giant room where they perform the examinations, but there are like five corpses and multiple medical examiners. One person does fingerprints. Another one may be doing the brains. It was a very eye- and mind-opening experience. No pun intended. Or is it? 

Either way, I did public service for my first summer and I loved it. For 2Ls and 3Ls, OGI is pretty much over, so we can finally relax. I hope we all get what we are looking for when it comes to offers. 1Ls soon you will have a choice to make as to what you want to do with your next summer. There are many options out there to choose from to spend your summer. I recommend the United States Attorney’s Office in D.C. or any other office for that matter. Maybe you will catch the public service bug. Maybe you will get to go on a police ride-along. Maybe you will realize you want to be a prosecutor. Maybe you will realize you want stay as far away from prosecution as possible. That’s unlikely, but either way, whatever you decide, I wish you all the best.

---

rtd2vb@virginia.edu

Five UVa Law Traditions for the Incoming 1L

Eric Hall (he/him/his) '18
Managing Editor

Welcome to Charlottesville, and the happiest law school on earth. Despite the brief but ugly appearance of Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, this town remains as vibrant, multicultural, and tolerant as ever. Nowhere more so than the law school. Generations of Virginia Law students have fostered bonds of friendship that transcend race and political ideology thanks to a set of traditions, some of which date back to the days when Robert Mueller or Antonin Scalia walked the halls. These traditions promote collegiality and trust, core tenets of what Dean Faulk calls “the Virginia Way.” As political division reaches a fever pitch and the nation reels from the deplorable events in #Charlottesville, we need these traditions now more than ever. 

Peer Advisors

The first tradition you’ll encounter may be the most important to the Virginia Law culture. To my knowledge, no other top ten law school places as much emphasis on mentorship as UVa does with its Peer Advisor program. By now you will have met your six Peer Advisors, or PAs, and hopefully had the chance to spend some time with a few of them. Although I may be biased, being a Peer Advisor is a tremendous honor, for the law school entrusts them with tremendous responsibility. Each sextet of PAs is carefully curated to represent every facet of law school life and, as well as possible, reflect the section they serve. Whether you’re conservative or liberal, came straight through from undergrad or took time off, are from the East Coast or the West, you can find a PA to identify with. 

But the PAs do more than look the part. They’re also some of the law school’s most successful students. In academics, extra-curriculars, and (most important) personal well-being, the 60-odd PAs have figured out how to do law school right. It’s a competitive process to become a PA, which speaks not only to the eagerness of UVa students to mentor 1Ls, but also to the quality of the group that makes the cut. 

Think of the PAs as a first-line resource for all things law school. They’ve taken your professors and done well. They’ve secured 1L summer jobs in interesting places. They know the best haunts in town and will take you to them.  You need only ask. They can also help with more personal problems. Struggling in class? Problems with one of your class mates? Your PA can either help or help you find the resources you need.  

Dandelion

1996 Section G rides atop a "hand-made" E30 BMW float at the Dandelion Parade. Photo courtesy of archives.law.virginia.edu.

1996 Section G rides atop a "hand-made" E30 BMW float at the Dandelion Parade. Photo courtesy of archives.law.virginia.edu.

You probably heard it mentioned in passing before you heard it explained. Dandelion, which is happening September 1st at 5 PM in The Park, is nominally the official start of the softball season, although actual section-on-section softball games won’t happen until a few weeks later.  When it was invented 33 years ago, 1Ls made brightly-colored floats and paraded through Grounds handing out Tootsie Rolls to undergrads on their way to the softball fields . . . or something like that. The origins of Dandelion are admittedly hazy. Today it is still tied to softball, although no one thinks about softball when they recall Dandelion (if they recall anything at all). In place of floats and marching 1Ls, Dandelion is known more for its entertaining, occasionally outrageous musical “skits.” 

Here’s what happens: Drawing inspiration from its letter designation, each section and the LLMs devise their own skit, almost always set to music, which highlights the talents (or absence thereof) of members in the section. Successful past entries include the LLMs thoughtful (read: raunchy) depiction of the American presidential election, and 2016 Section F’s arcane, pun-on-a-pun Fairly Odd Patents routine. Indeed, some parts of the modern Dandelion tradition remain inexplicable. A panel of judges representing the North Grounds Softball League scrutinizes each section’s skit for technique, form, creativity, and “extra”-ness. The “winning” team will then play a ceremonial exhibition match against a team hastily assembled by NGSL. They will lose. 

Our advice: shoot for second. Seeding in the 1L tournament is determined by placement at Dandelion. So, while you don’t want to come in first and face NGSL’s best pitchers at their least coordinated, you also don’t want your first game of the tournament scheduled at 7 AM. One final word of wisdom: don’t throw food at the audience. It will be thrown back. 

Softball

2016 Section E, the Legal Eagles, smile after a devastating loss. Photo courtesy of Facebook.com.

2016 Section E, the Legal Eagles, smile after a devastating loss. Photo courtesy of Facebook.com.

Is it required? No. Should you play anyway? Absolutely. There are few of us at the Law Weekly who are any good at softball, and I am not among them. Notwithstanding, I maintain that softball is a valuable component of the “Virginia Way.” Even if you stand a snowball’s chance in hell at getting tapped for NGSL (i.e. you’re not a competent player), you should make softball a part of your 1L experience. Softball brings sections together over beer, walk-up songs, and light friendly competition against other 1L sections. No one will remember the time you struck out or broke both your arms the week before finals. Some professors even get in on the action. One year, Professor Hynes assigned cold calls to the losing half of his two-section class. 

Traditionally, 1L teams find a sponsor, (usually a local business or a law firm), to pay for and slap their logo on a set of jerseys. Softball captains, after assessing their section’s enthusiasm, will typically hold a few practices before and between games. They’ll also coordinate with other sections to schedule games and draft a gender balanced batting order. If you’re not your section’s softball captain, all you need to worry about is choosing a walk-up song and bringing a glove (we recommend inheriting one from a 3L PA or—worst case scenario—Play-it-Again Sports down 29).

Foxfield

Foxfield, or more accurately the Foxfield Family Day Races, happens every year on the last Sunday of September. To the rest of Charlottesville, Foxfield is a day to swathe your family in bowties and pastels for a day spent cheering on your favorite thoroughbred. But don’t be fooled. Most law school attendees never see a horse. And if you stumble into a family, you’ve likely strayed from the quarantine pen where they keep the law students (apologize, and then follow the noise coming from somewhere near the dumpsters). We do, however, obey the dress code. Splashy big hats, Vineyard Vines, and Lilly Pulitzer tie-dye the field. If it’s rainy, expect a stampede of Bean Boots. If you weren’t sure which of your sectionmates came from Southern privilege, an un-ironic Foxfield outfit should clue you in.

3Ls dress absurdly at Foxfield 2016. Photo courtesy of content Facebook.com.

3Ls dress absurdly at Foxfield 2016. Photo courtesy of content Facebook.com.

Garish gussets aside, Foxfield is also one of the few early events at which 1Ls, and 2Ls, and 3Ls have cause to interact. 1L sections pair up, two per plot, inside the race track. Each pairing typically offers a food item (BBQ sandwiches and mac n’ cheese were favorites in past years) and a beverage, housed under a rented or borrowed shelter. Sections are also responsible for paying the fee for a Foxfield plot out of their section fund. Getting to Foxfield can be a bit tricky. Luckily, SBA runs a series of buses from the law school, but you’ll have to buy tickets at their table near ScoCo. Tickets to the race are separate and—even though this is 2017—can only be purchased in person at select local businesses. Most people go to Greenberry’s in Barracks Row. 

Carter Mountain Sunset Series

Revelers ogle a sunset at Carter Mountain. Hope you kept your eclipse glasses. Photo courtesy of content ChilesFamilyOrchard.com.

Revelers ogle a sunset at Carter Mountain. Hope you kept your eclipse glasses. Photo courtesy of content ChilesFamilyOrchard.com.

As UVa traditions go, this one’s just a newborn. Every Thursday from May to October, gaggles of 1Ls make the pilgrimage up Carter Mountain’s twisty roads to sit toe to toe on too-small picnic blankets, and watch the sun set to a townie band cover of Wagon Wheel. Neither the overcrowded mountainside nor the overpriced Bold Rock can sully the glorious view from atop Carter Mountain. Each week features a different local musical act, and every week features the Chiles family’s fabulous hot cider donuts. Our recommendation: go early, sample a flight at the Bold Rock (cider) or Prince Michel (wine) tasting room, then hike up the hill and bag a bushel of ripe peaches and apples before the crowds arrive. 

---

ech8vm@virgina.edu

A Few Good People

Kimberly Hopkin (she/her/hers) '19
Columns Editor

Before I came to law school, I was told by one of my mentors that I would be the happiest person in my class. She wasn’t commenting on my actual personality and demeanor; she was trying to imagine going through law school without having to deal with the stress of trying to find internships or earn a GPA high enough to enter the job market. While those are certainly perks, I like to think that I’m extremely lucky not because I already have a job but because I already have my dream job. I’m an active duty Air Force officer who, with any luck, will be part of the Judge Advocate General Corps. In fact, this summer I got the opportunity to intern at a base-level legal office working on diverse issues common across Air Force bases. 

Photo courtesy Facebook.com

Photo courtesy Facebook.com

I think there are some common misconceptions about what JAGs do. While I can’t speak for the other branches, I can clear up some urban legends about what Air Force JAGs do – and, no, we aren’t pilots. At every base, there is a Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) who works directly for the Wing Commander (essentially the CEO of the base). The lawyers who work for the SJA are Assistant Staff Judge Advocates (ASJAs) and usually in charge of one or two categories of law. For instance, a new ASJA will typically start out learning civil or administrative law and practice employment law and deal with ethical questions from commanders. But they could also easily be placed in environmental or contract law for their first assignment reviewing contract solicitations, bids, task orders for IDIQ contracts, or overseeing the process when contractors fall short. While there is a Chief of Military Justice (usually a second or third assignment Captain), all the ASJAs will take turns prosecuting different cases. This is not only because of a heavy case load, but also because they need to earn their certification before they can go to trial without a senior officer. So, the rumor about being in a court room within six months of passing the bar is realistic although not guaranteed. 

All ASJAs will also spend between three-to-four hours per week doing Legal Assistance. This can range from drafting wills and powers of attorney to giving legal advice to tenants seeking to break their lease under the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act (SCRA). They can give preliminary advice on starting a divorce or consumer protection rights, but they can’t represent members in court. This is because ASJAs work for the government first and foremost. Therefore, even though the Air Force encourages legal assistance appointments to save members millions of dollars in legal fees annually, ASJAs carefully consider whether taking on a client would in any way compromise their duty to the Air Force or the client. For instance, an ASJA would never give a service member advice on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) because they need to be able to prosecute without any conflicts of interest. 

Therefore, at each base there is also an Area Defense Counsel (ADC) who doesn’t answer to any authority on the base. These are usually third assignment Captains who have previously been a Chief of Military Justice. These lawyers represent service members who are accused of disciplinary or criminal infractions. They usually have a heavy case load and travel to other bases within their region frequently. For instance, if two service members are accused of smoking marijuana together, then the ADC can only represent one, and an ADC from another base in the region will represent the other. It’s not unusual to handle around 35 clients at a time – even at a small base. 

One unique role for lawyers in the Air Force is the Special Victim’s Counsel (SVC). Every time a case involves a crime about sexual assault or domestic violence, among other qualifiers, the victim is given the opportunity to be represented for free by an SVC. The SVC’s job is to specifically advocate for the victim’s rights during the process. For instance, it might be helpful to the prosecution to have a victim testify about the accused serving them alcohol, but they shouldn’t advise the victim to give that testimony if they are underage. Also, if the victim is military too, there can be disciplinary issues that arise out of working through the traumatic experience. In a world where you can lose your job based on how quickly you run a mile and a half, and where repeatedly coming to work late is a crime, the Air Force wants to give victims enough space to heal while still maintaining discipline. The SVC represents their client and their interests alone. 

While many are pulled to serve in the JAG Corps because of the unique way military lawyers practice several different types of law, I think the majority choose to join because they want to serve in the military. It’s a different way of life that’s hard to explain. Some of the civilian men I’ve talked to about the military seem to think the kind of discipline required is similar to playing high school or college sports. Both can be inspiring and rigid, but I don’t get to decide where I live, when I move, how to wear my hair every day, or how big my waistline can be. Sometimes I’m chest-deep in paperwork that seems irrelevant and all-consuming. Or, I’m spending my lunch hour clicking through mandatory online training about how to operate a fire extinguisher. (Yes, my entire lunch hour.) It can be really easy to feel like you don’t have any impact, like you are a cog in a huge machine. Someone “thanking me for my service” on those days makes me feel like a fraud. 

But then I look up from my paperwork, and I realize that I’m part of the best “company” in the world. I get to work for and with some of the best people you’ll ever meet. Where they truly care about your mental health and whether you spend enough time with your family. I’ll never have to worry about being paid less than my male counter-parts. Not deciding where to move next means I move out of my comfort zone and see the world. Focusing on fitness means I can get out of the office and go for a run as part of my job. Wearing my hair in a low bun means I can sleep in fifteen minutes because I don’t have to blow-dry my hair. Being in the military has taught me resilience and forces me to push through things that make me uncomfortable or frustrated. I may risk my life during a deployment, or be separated from my family over the holidays, but it’s worth it to me because I work somewhere that closes the office so that my co-workers can eat tacos with me because it’s the last day of my eight-week internship. Taking that lunch break means most of them stayed even later that night, but they didn’t mind. That’s what being in the military is like. 

---

knh3zd@virginia.edu

Advice from a (Basically Functional) 2L

Katherine Mann (she/her/hers) '19
Columns Editor

Let me make it very clear that I was recruited by my (wise and talented) editor-in-chief to write this column, and while I’m not sure anyone with sense should follow my advice, I’m willing to interrupt my two weeks of callbacks, pool trips, novel-reading, eclipse-watching, and coffee on the back porch to shed some light on what’s coming for you. Your PAs are great and they’re going to tell you everything you need to know as this year progresses. I’m going to try to shed some light on the small things I found out during the year that I wish I’d known earlier. You’ll realize by the end of this column that I pretty much fumble through life, and it’s a miracle I got into UVa Law at all. 

There’s a lot of stuff you really need to worry about during your first few weeks, beyond classes and reading. You will be overwhelmed and feel crazed. There are tons of meetings during the first few weeks for affinity groups, career services, and financial aid. Be selective (but when the email says mandatory, they mean it). Get on some listservs for groups you’re interested in, but feel free to go to only the meetings for groups or issues you really care about. Seek out meetings with free food, especially if you’re still figuring out how to grocery shop and pack a lunch. As someone staring down forty with a third-grader, I’ve gotten pretty good at this, but I gather people in their twenties don’t always have this down. One of the benefits of joining the Law Weekly is free pizza on Monday nights while we edit, so I was glad to have found this group early last year.

There’s free coffee on the second floor of the library in MyLab, and it took me a long time to figure this out, because, early on, I stayed in my apartment to study. It turns out I’m much more focused in the library, and less tempted to binge-watch Bob’s Burgers or Suits. Also, since I hate disposable coffee cups, I’ll mention that you can in fact bring your own mug to the upstairs Keurigs, and the bottom of each lifts up so that your mug, likely taller than a ten-ounce paper cup, can fit. I only learned this by watching someone else do it while my phone was charging in MyLab, and it was spring. You’re welcome.

The law library's wasteful but free coffee option. Photo courtesy Keurig.com.

The law library's wasteful but free coffee option. Photo courtesy Keurig.com.

Unfortunately, free coffee is generally the worst kind, and I find Keurig to be only a mild exception, and still wasteful. It’ll do in a pinch, but I’m snobby enough about coffee that I usually go to ScoCo. I drink it black, so it’s not too much of an expense, and chatting with Mandy at the checkout counter is always a highlight of my day. If I’m feeling fancy and I have a lull in the day, I’ll walk over to Shark Mountain and indulge in a Dirty Chai. I suppose everyone has to develop their own coffee hierarchy independently, but mine’s a good start. And if you don’t drink coffee I have nothing to say to you, except good luck with finals.

The law school's hipster coffee option. Photo courtesy Yelp.com.

The law school's hipster coffee option. Photo courtesy Yelp.com.

Small things add up in terms of staying sane. Get a locker and keep emergency items in it. Advil, a phone charger, tampons, granola bars for after five when student affairs is closed, whatever you might think you’ll need. Once I figured out that there was an electric kettle, refrigerators, and microwaves in ScoCo – again, rather late in the year – it opened vast horizons in terms of the food I brought with me each day. I keep green tea and Cup o’ Noodles-type soups in my locker, and they’ve gotten me through many a late night. 

Learn how to book study rooms through the library website for getting groups together during finals. It helps to talk about practice exam questions with other human beings. There’s a bin of earplugs next to the circulation desk in the library on the lower floor for those of you, who, like me, don’t have noise-cancelling headphones. Trust me, the library is louder than you think. And not that this is critical information, but if you walk all the way back through the first floor of the library, you can get back to the main hallway of Withers-Brown through that exit. I seriously figured that out this summer. 

And here’s the lightning round: Listen to your PAs. Ask lots of questions, especially of upper-level students. Read all emails from career services. Visit your professors during office hours. Don’t get so drunk at Bar Review that you stumble in to your 8:30 Friday class with a hangover. Don’t skip classes. Try to meet people outside of your section. Don’t forgo human contact to binge-study. Take care of your body. Above all, have fun. Make friends; explore Charlottesville. You’re in the last three years of school that you’ll likely ever experience, so take some time to enjoy it. 

---

kmm2bb@virginia.edu

 

CARE Takes a Look at America’s Future

Michelle Chang '19
Guest Columnist

In this politically and ideologically divisive era, at least we can all agree that children are our future, right? Wrong. Here are some problems and misconceptions surrounding the education system and the juvenile justice system, and their undeniable connection to race, mental disabilities, and poverty. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. I ask that you put yourselves in someone else’s shoes and try to empathize with their struggles. 

The United States locks up more kids than any other developed country. All three branches of the government agree that, because children are different from adults, the motivation behind the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate, not incarcerate. If putting kids in jail cells was effective, we should have the lowest juvenile crime rate. So, does it work? Absolutely not. CARE (Child Advocacy Research and Education) screened a documentary on April 6, 2017 titled Prison Kids: A Crime Against America’s Children, which exposes a wide array of issues within the juvenile justice system, ranging from excessive hours in solitary confinement, inability to treat mental disabilities, and the disproportionate number of African-American and mentally disabled children in the system.

The documentary begins with the tale of Zion, a 7-year-old Hispanic boy residing in Broward County, Florida. He has ADHD, anxiety, and occasional seizures. Just in the first grade, Zion earns twenty-five write ups. Think back to your elementary school self. How confused and discouraged would you have been, if you got sent to the office every time you threw a tantrum? Zion’s mom is anxious that the school will contact the police and Zion will be arrested.

Her worries are not unfounded. School incidents involving minorities, particularly African-Americans, Hispanics, and children with mental disabilities, are overwhelmingly more likely to be reported to the police. Incidents such as cursing in the school parking lot have led to police involvement. Furthermore, not only are minorities more likely to be reported to the police, they are also more likely to be charged as adults, accompanied by mandatory minimum sentences. 

The “no crimes are juvenile” movement began in the 90s when the media brought into the spotlight a series of violent crimes committed by juveniles. In thirty-three states, there was no minimum age by which the state could charge children as adults; in eleven states, sixteen and seventeen-year-olds were charged as adults. States enacted “zero tolerance” policies in schools that led to the rise of the “school to prison pipeline.” 

As Judge Elijah Williams, sponsor of the PROMISE program in Broward County, Florida, points out, there is a huge difference between “kids that scare you” and “kids that make you angry.” Most kids do stupid things that make people angry. The majority of delinquents are not charged with violent crimes. In fact, most of the offenses are not crimes for adults, such as missing curfews or skipping school. Some kids have severe mental disabilities that the communities (school and parents) do not have the resources to handle. Instead of trying to figure out why kids are misbehaving, calling the police is the easier and faster way for schools to get rid of the problems.

Imagine your middle or high school self, writing on the wall or skipping school because, well, why not? Next thing you know, you’re with the wrong people and the police shows up and you’re charged as an adult. Congratulations, you just earned yourself a 10-year minimum stay in jail. You will be in juvie and then adult jail until you’re 26 just because you made a mistake but people are worried you will become a violent predator. 

Many kids that end up in the juvenile justice system are living with PTSD. They have been shot at, bullets in their bodies, or have seen people die in their arms. Think back to the last car accident you drove by or the last funeral you attended; can you imagine seeing grave injury and even death right in front of you? I cannot imagine the pain, sorrow, and fear these kids experience in their own neighborhoods at a young age. Unfortunately, some kids resort to gangs for protection and a support system.

The problem persists inside the juvenile correctional facilities. The documentary follows Savannah as she recounts experiencing and witnessing severe depression, cutting, and suicide attempts in an Ohio juvenile facility since she was fourteen. Many facilities use solitary confinement as a disciplinary tool. In theory, solitary confinement functions like time-out. If you misbehave, they put you in time-out so you know not to repeat this behavior. However, recall that a disproportionate number of delinquents have mental disorders. These kids are put in a tiny cell with just four walls, alone with their thoughts for twenty-three hours per day. This can lead to hallucination, depression, and other problems that cause children to behave even more erratically when released, which puts them at a higher risk to return to solitary confinement. According to the Campaign for Youth Justice, juveniles are nineteen times more likely to commit suicide when in solitary confinement. 

Alternatively, programs such as the PROMISE program in Broward County refer students to counseling programs that address the underlying problems, instead of perpetuating the “school-to-prison” pipeline by contacting the police. Teachers and counselors in these programs help identify the causes of behavioral problems and create action plans to help students get back on track. Its success in Broward County has earned national recognition; no one doubts its success.

But why don’t we see more of these programs around? Money. Although the Supreme Court has identified education as an important right, there is no constitutional right to quality education. The Supreme Court leaves all education decisions up to the states. Like all issues deferred to the states, effective policies come from legislators with great incentives, but ineffective policies come from states in which many people see education as a zero-sum game. It’s my kids versus your kids. Why should I use my money to fund your child’s education? The more they give to your kids, the less they give to my kids. These assumptions ignore the social and economic benefits that could result from all kids having access to quality education. Every kid will be better off in the long run if all kids are given the same opportunities. 

One of the most frustrating misconception about poverty is that poor people are poor because they are not trying hard enough. That cannot be further from the truth. I highly encourage everyone to go on playspent.org and attempt to “live in poverty.” This game gives you a budget and you have to make life decisions accordingly. As Professor Coughlin’s Law and Public Service class discussion points out, poverty is about the lack of choices. The things you and I take for granted, such as shelter, food, parents, and access to medical attention, are the reasons we have choices. 

Our parents had the choice to attend our school functions so we were motivated to excel. Our parents could afford healthcare when we were sick so we didn’t have to suffer long-term medical conditions. Our parents were supportive of us attending college because our family wouldn’t starve if we didn’t work full-time. We grew up with choices and opportunities. Because we can choose to be lazy and unproductive, we label people on welfare or social benefits as second-class citizens without understanding why they can’t get out.

The game on playspent.org highlights the difficulty of maintaining a job, raising a family, and balancing one’s mental and physical health when one lacks the basic necessities. How do you acquire the skills for a better job when your family needs you to work full-time? How do you stay healthy when healthy choices are more expensive? How do you keep a job when the initial expenses of uniforms and transportation are more than you can afford?

When I was working in Miami, I mentored and tutored both inner-city high school students and nationally-ranked private school students. I saw many underrepresented students with potential and intelligence that surpassed their counterparts in private schools. This is in addition to facing starvation, violence, and sexual assault. However, many of them will not go to college because their parents need them to work. Some of us are lucky to have been born into families with more resources. While not discounting the effort and hard work we’ve all put in to get here, the very least we can do is to acknowledge that not everyone’s starting point is the same. As I stated in the beginning, it starts with understanding the struggles someone else is going through. The next step is to consider giving every child at least the opportunity to succeed. 

---

mc3qu@virginia.edu