Fitz File

It is important to be clear about something in this pandemic: the mass quarantines and stay-at-home orders were not put in place because otherwise everyone would die. These orders were designed to keep the current medical infrastructure in place and allow for people who get the virus to have a greater chance of survival. According to the New York Times , the current number of worldwide cases is just above 3.5 million, with 251,457 deaths, placing the death rate at 7%.  This would make it seem like getting the virus is no big deal, but that was never the risk factor. In the same way everyone was surprised when the found their grocery stores empty, none of our systems are designed to serve every single person at the same time. But because of these prudent precautions, we have also thrown our economy into something it cannot handle: a slowdown of cashflow. I could write a whole other post on the foolishness of our precarious economy which  requires a majority of the populatio...

              It has been a habit of news organizations and political analysis alike to analyze the Trump Administration in terms of the amount of impact on future presidencies. Every action by a President creates an opening for future ones to act in the same way and use the past action as justification. This creation of a precedent for executive action is common way to measure the impact of a current presidency. But unlike others, this administration has become known for breaking with norms and other precedents. This includes everything from ignoring subpoenas and declaring emergencies, to pulling the country out of international agreements. Unfortunately, this large amount of changes seems to be more based on the undoing of the Obama Administration’s achievements rather than a genuine need for change. This could lead to an unsustainable practice of working to undo everything your predecessor achieved in order to score political points. I call ...

On Wednesday, the 4 th of December, the House Judiciary Committee heard from a panel of historians and law professors on the history of impeachment and under what grounds can it be brought against a president. As a history nerd, I was delighted to see this hearing announced. But I also recognized the importance and political strategy by Chairman Nadler in having it.             There will be four professors attending this hearing, Noah Feldman from Harvard, Pamela Karlan from Stanford, Michael Gerhardt from UNC, and Jonathan Turley from GW. I have attended a talk with Mr. Feldman who is particularly skilled, though each come from fantastic schools and will shed an invaluable prospective on the current process. It will also be interesting to see the possible difference in opinions, Mr. Turley was invited to testify by the Republicans on the Committee, the rest were invited by the Democrats. While I am not sure of th...

            I have an unfortunate story that sometimes pops up in conversation. I am trying to reach a certain number of volunteer hours by the time I graduate law school, so I interact with a lot of lawyers who are getting in their pro bono hours. Every profession has its highs and lows, along with correspondingly good people and not-so-good people. During one of these activities I was paired with a lawyer who had the worst attitude I have ever seen, and what is worse: she took it out on her clients. With every question a client posed, she scoffed, rolled her eyes, and looked at me, as if to say, “can you believe how stupid this person is?” It did not happen once or twice, it was her reaction to every single question. As if, in her years of practice, she could not believe poor, vulnerable people do not understand the complexities of housing law and the surrounding mountain of forms. This experience truly encouraged me ...