Recent Articles tagged law school podcast blog canada from LexMonitor

CIRA Policy is Not the End of Web Annonymity

omar@lawiscool.com (Omar Ha-Redeye) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:11:44 GMT

Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa law commented today on the new policies by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) regarding individual internet registrants. He had previously come out in support of their position, but it appears as if CIRA is backtracking on some of their changes. CIRA is attempting to create a balance between privacy [...]

Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa law commented today on the new policies by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) regarding individual internet registrants.

He had previously come out in support of their position, but it appears as if CIRA is backtracking on some of their changes.

CIRA is attempting to create a balance between privacy concerns of members of the public registering domain names, and access by those requiring legitimate access to their identity.

As before, information can be provided to law enforcement, and with the spread of hate crimes, threats, fraud, and other abuse on the Internet, this access will likely be increasingly utilized.

But access is also provided to trademark, copyright and patent interests that believe their intellectual property rights have been infringed.

Geist argues that the trademark changes violate Canadian privacy law, and whistblowers setting up a site against their company would be unnecessarily exposed,

Under the new CIRA policy, if they use fake registrant information, they risk losing the domain. On the other hand, the back-door exception means that the trademark holder can easily uncover the identity of the registrant since CIRA will simply hand over this information.

It’s actually not that easy.

The only disputes that CIRA states they will even contemplate a disclosure are when the use:

infringes Requestor’s Canadian: (i) registered trademark, (ii) registered copyright,
or (iii) issued patent;
infringes Requestor’s Canadian registered (Federal or Provincial) corporate,
business or trade name; or
is making use of the Requester’s personal information without their knowledge or
consent to commit a crime (such as fraud, theft or forgery), to procure money,
credit, loans, goods or services without authorization. (Identity Theft)

Maureen Cubberley, chair of the CIRA board of directors, has explained that it’s intended for cybersquatting, resale of domain names for profit, and malicious registrations towards competitors,

It’s limited to ‘bad faith’ registrations…

What we’ve done is make an exhaustive list of where the policy would apply in these situations.

Even then, such disclosures would only be made after attempts to contact the individual and resolve the dispute in other ways has been ineffective. There is even a 60-day period where parties can challenge a ruling, and take it to the courts beyond that.

A more valid concern would be social justice advocates attacked for their work by the larger public or major corporations. But as long as a person does not misappropriate a trademark or name or misuse personal information, it’s unlikely that any form of widespread abuse would occur by CIRA.

One of Geist’s more credible issues would be the arbitration process, because panels with a single arbitrator chosen by the arbitrator are more likely to favour with the complainant - in 83% of the cases. A panel with several individuals chosen by both parties is more likely to have a balanced decision.

But that’s exactly the process that CIRA is adopting.

Although complete annonymity and the ability to whine on nearly any subject imaginable might be slightly curtailed, especially when posing as a corporate entity, web hosters would also have a greater sense of responsiblity more akin to the printed press.

They now know that if they abuse their priviledges they will eventually be called to task.

And we’re forgetting one thing.

The new policy would only apply to “.ca” domains, which are still barely used even among the Canadian public.

Geist did predict that if these trademark changes were not made they would,

…instantly catapult the dot-ca into a global leadership position. With more than a million Canadian domain name registrations, the resolution of the WHOIS issue ensures that the Canadian domain name space is set for continued growth as it now features a “privacy advantage” over other domains struggling to strike a similar compromise.

Tightening privacy issues may have promoted the use “.ca” on the Internet, but for now we’re in just about the same place as everyone else, which is probably exactly where we should be.

The law school blog and podcast from Canada

Profile of a Stalker

omar@lawiscool.com (Omar Ha-Redeye) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:58:40 GMT

Stalking the Stalker We all have them, even if the innocuous kinds like on Facebook. But we thought it would be fun to stalk the stalker, by creating a profile of the different types out there. Stalking is defined as an obsessive behaviour towards another, motivated by intense affection or extreme dislike. The behaviour of stalkers can range from [...]

Stalking the Stalker

We all have them, even if the innocuous kinds like on Facebook.

But we thought it would be fun to stalk the stalker, by creating a profile of the different types out there.

Stalking is defined as an obsessive behaviour towards another, motivated by intense affection or extreme dislike.

The behaviour of stalkers can range from the irrational and the violent, to the flattering and overly affectionate. Most, however, do not represent physical threats, but are still usually unpredictable.

Their behaviour is outside the norms of social acceptance, which projects them as unpredictable to their targets. It is the lack of predictability of stalkers that usually sets off alarm bells of their victims, who often fear that they may instantly turn aggressively violent.

Four types of stalkers types are described below, though many stalkers have elements of more than one profile.

Erotomania

An erotomaniac has a persistent belief that they are loved by another, even if the other person does not know they exist.

Usually this bond is formed with someone of a higher social status or position of authority.

Their goal is to establish a relationship with their fantasy (we’re not sure how this is entirely distinct from groupies).

An example of an extreme erotomaniac can be seen in Tarasoff v. Regents.

Borderline Erotomania

Yes, there are moderate forms of stalkers too.

This type of erotomania is characterized by the knowledge that the victim does not love them back. They actually may have even had some sort of contact, conversation, or otherwise meaningless contact with their victim.

Their behaviour, however, can be exactly the same, and just as creepy as the regular erotomaniac.

Former Intimate Stalkers

Yes, rejection hurts.

These stalkers usually have a real romantic history with the person. So basically this is the guy/girl who got dumped and never got over it and kept going.

They don’t fantasize about a relationship with their victim, but have an unhealthy emotional attachment. They can so far as to target the spouse or partner of their victim, who may be perceived as the obstacle to their reunification.

Extreme cases can even result in double murders, such as Andre Ducarme with Sherry and Maurice Paul.

The LAPD claims that 48% of their case load are these types of stalkers. Something about those California Girls probably.

Sociopathic Stalkers

This type of stalker is so messed up that they don’t even want a relationship with their victim. Instead, they’ve created an ideal partner in their head, and find someone they can place into this ideal.

The extreme sociopathic stalker can become a serial murder or rapist, such as Charles Ng.

So now that you know what to look for, identify these stalkers and keep them out of your life.

If, that is, you even know they are watching you.
Directly based on an excerpt from an article by Bruce MacFarlane, People Who Stalk People. (1997) 31 U.B.C. L. Rev. 37-94.

The law school blog and podcast from Canada

A Wise Man Once Said…

omar@lawiscool.com (Omar Ha-Redeye) — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:02:33 GMT

Last week I met with Toronto lawyer Garry Wise. Garry is one of the few practitioners that has made a prominent impression in the legal blawgosphere. Garry’s blawg was one of the other recipients of the 2007 CLawBie Awards, for Best Practitioner Support Blog: Garry Wise - Year-in and year-out, Garry is one committed law blogger. [...]

Last week I met with Toronto lawyer Garry Wise.

Garry is one of the few practitioners that has made a prominent impression in the legal blawgosphere. Garry’s blawg was one of the other recipients of the 2007 CLawBie Awards, for Best Practitioner Support Blog:

Garry Wise - Year-in and year-out, Garry is one committed law blogger. He offers his opinions on almost everything, and if you do a Google search for Toronto lawyer you’ll see how blogging benefits the online exposure of his practice. If you didn’t read his Starting a law firm post back in February, please do. Garry Wise consistently offers great vision to a lot of solos across the country.

He related how he created his first firm site back in 1999, and has seen enormous returns from his online interaction. His client intakes have skyrocketed, and he is well-known and respected in the legal community.

We had a wonderful discussion on various subjects, and found many areas of mutual interest and common ground. Garry was generous enough to state that I would be an asset to any firm, and that progressive firms interested in expanding their client base should be trying to recruit me. Garry, I will be using your name as a reference as promised.

But he also suggested that I consider going solo directly out of law school, because I already have background knowledge and an existing client base in my area of legal interest (health), and greater prominence and contacts than many practitioners in the field for several years.

I’m not sure that’s the route I want to take, but it’s no surprise that his post on Starting a Law Firm is one of his most widely read articles. Garry outlines the basic requirements and strategic planning to set up your own firm.

But the “cons” he states - longer hours and more stress than even Bay St., and cost consideration during the initial start up - are likely to dissuade some of the most charismatic and entrepreneurial young lawyers, who opt to lend their credibility to a larger firm instead. Burn-out and stress are other often cited complaints of sole practitioners.

Gary Lloyd Gottlieb, a sole practitioner in Toronto, says in To be or no to be a prisoner of Bay St.,

The best advice I can give to a new lawyer who wants to practice solo is not to do it right away. You will spend too much time reinventing the wheel and then needlessly spinning it. Specialize and learn the ropes from the best lawyer or firm you can get a job with. Develop the knowledge and the competence for private practice for which law school has not equipped you, and for which the newly revamped bar admission process will not adequately equip you either. Develop your sea legs before you set sail alone.

That being said, all is not grim for those who choose to become sole practitioners. There are resources now available that did not exist when I sallied forth on my own 35 years ago

This could explain why the average age of sole practitioners in Ontario is 51, with only 12% under 35, according to a Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) survey in 2005.

Yet as we’ve pointed out before, nearly half of Canadian lawyers are self-employed. Jordan Furlong recently provided further break-down of the types of legal practice in Canada, indicating that less that 10% of Canadian lawyers can be found in large firms.

Gottlieb provides tips for those who comprise the vast majority if Canadian lawyers,

You need an independent temperament, the ability to constantly adapt, and eternal optimism to survive as a sole practitioner. You should also not expect a pot of gold.

Above all, you must take to heart the wisdom expressed in the Ethics of the Fathers; in order to be happy, you must be satisfied with your lot.

Access to Justice and Diversity

Smaller firms play an essential role in providing greater access to justice to smaller communities, and often more reasonable billing to clients.

But a recent story in the Star related how rising student debt compells many new graduates to flock to large law firms to pay off student loans. As a result, many smaller communities are increasingly finding themselves without legal services. Some have responded by considering loan-forgiveness programs for new lawyers who move to small towns.

Other lawyers go solo as a result of the failings of big firms that fail create inclusive environments. A 2000 LSUC Equity and Aboriginal Issues Committee report stated,

A number of lawyers feel alienated by the size and types of practice of large firms, and choose to practice in small firms or as sole practitioners.

But the report continues, and indicates that small firms might actually be worse for diversity issues.

However, small firms and sole practitioners often do not have the resources and time to deal with equity and diversity issues, or to develop the appropriate expertise to do so effectively. There are also those who may believe that equity does not add value for law firms which already have strong reputations and clients. Further, members of communities may not be aware of the availability of legal services or may feel that their lawyer either does not understand them, treats them differently, harasses or discriminates against them or otherwise violates their rights.

It’s probably a misconception then that lawyers elect for small practice because they cannot find an inclusive environment in any large law firm.

But there are other reasons for going solo, including women who want greater flexibility in their practice to accommodate a family.

Availability of Mentoring

Gottlieb has elsewhere criticized other LSUC initiatives of a practice management review program as a “A War on Sole Practitioners.” But these accusations have been rebuffed by Gavin MacKenzie of Heenan Blaike, who says that such procedures would apply to number of years of practice, and not type of practice ,

Both law society discipline and LawPRO statistics show that the early years of private practice pose a risk for the development of practice difficulties. Beginning the practice management review program with a focus on members who have been called to the bar for the formative one to eight years and who are in private practice is a risk-based approach that is justified both by data and common sense.

MacKenzie claims that LSUC instead provides support to the independant practitioner,

One of the most important initiatives of this Convocation has been to help sole practitioners and small firm lawyers to survive and thrive. We struck a task force to recommend ways in which as a profession we can preserve and strengthen the practices of the 94 per cent of Ontario law firms that consist of five lawyers or fewer. These sole practitioners and small firms provide the vast majority of legal services to individuals in search of access to justice.

The LSUC report on sole practitioners highlights mentoring as one of the major areas of need. And this probably remains the best asset that large law firms have for young lawyers, beyond issues of compensation or diversity. Many of the more progressive firms increasingly have formalized mentoring programs.

Size versus Presence

Valerie Mutton covered the LSUC report in the Lawyers Weekly, and interviewed Diana Miles, the LSUC’s director of professional development and competence. She suggests that planning is the essential key to a small practice.

But Jordan Furlong says,

Really, in 20 years’ time, the whole notion of “law firm sizes” may very well seem quaint. It won’t be all that relevant how big your law firm is — with the exception of the global giants, size really won’t matter, because the heavily niched, increasingly mobile and wired lawyers of the future won’t find enough advantages to a common office space and letterhead. It may not even take that long, if the changes we can already see rippling through the profession start multiplying faster than expected.

According to Mutton,

Getting your name known in the community and within the profession is essential to the development of a successful practice…

Miles also suggests that new lawyers should take a course in personal marketing, since new lawyers often feel awkward about basic self-promotion such as handing out business cards or introducing themselves to potential clients.

The basic denominator to all these practices, whether small or the 10% in large firms, is presence.

And arguably, it is early adopters such as Garry Wise that have led the way for Canadian lawyers.

The law school blog and podcast from Canada

LSUC Provides Measures to Retain Female Talent

omar@lawiscool.com (Omar Ha-Redeye) — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:19:58 GMT

Tracy Tyler has a story in today’s Star which notes that although women are the majority of graduates today in law schools, on average they are quitting the profession within seven years. The Law Society of Upper Canada presented its final report yesterday by their Working Group on the Retention of Women in Private Practice. The recommendations [...]

Tracy Tyler has a story in today’s Star which notes that although women are the majority of graduates today in law schools, on average they are quitting the profession within seven years.

The Law Society of Upper Canada presented its final report yesterday by their Working Group on the Retention of Women in Private Practice.

The recommendations include the establishment of a parental leave program for sole and small firm practitioners, as well as a practice locum service, which are two of the most forward-looking proposals in the report. A recommendation to create the Justicia Think Tank, a project in which the Law Society would work with a group of large and medium sized firms across the province committed to implementing programs aimed at improving the retention of women was also adopted.

The Final Consultation Findings can be found here.

Tyler adds,

…the “next step” for the law society is to change law firm billing procedures that require women – and men – to work long hours in order to advance their careers.

The law school blog and podcast from Canada

California becomes second U.S. state to legalize gay marriage

omar@lawiscool.com (Omar Ha-Redeye) — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:12:55 GMT

This morning the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples were unconstitutional. Following a close 4-3 decision, California has become just the second state in America (after Massachusetts) to legalize gay marriage . The lengthy (174 page!) decision entitled “In re Marriage Cases” represented a consolidated appeal from 6 cases. [...]

The lengthy (174 page!) decision entitled “In re Marriage Cases” represented a consolidated appeal from 6 cases. You can read the full text of the decision here.

Californian homosexual couples were already entitled to virtually all of the same benefits available to straight married couples under the Domestic Partnership Act. The court, however, determined that the language and statutes governing “domestic partnerships” did not go far enough. The definition of marriage in California would no longer exclude homosexual couples.

At p. 120, George C.J. (Kennard, Werdegar, Moreno JJ. concurring) wrote:

… [W]e determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

In an interesting dissenting opinion (for fans of the “legitimacy of judicial review” debate), Baxter J. wrote that the majority had engaged in “legal jujitsu” and had been overzealous in interpreting the constitution. He was of the view that there was nothing implicit or explicit in the constitution which allowed the recognition of marriage between a same-sex couple. Therefore, he wrote, the majority had erred in viewing the progressive changes made by the legislatures in recognizing domestic unions as creating an implicit constitutional principle that marriage should extend to homosexual couples.

At p. 5 of the dissent, Baxter writes:

Recent years have seen the development of an intense debate about same-sex marriage. Advocates of this cause have had real success in the marketplace of ideas, gaining attention and considerable public support. Left to its own devices, the ordinary democratic process might well produce, ere long, a consensus among most Californians that the term “marriage” should, in civil parlance, include the legal unions of same-sex partners.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.

In any event, gays and lesbians in California have won a significant civil rights victory today in California. Following the 30 day suspension period, they will be legally allowed to marry in California.

Conservative groups must now petition for an amendment to the state constitution if they wish to challenge the court’s decision. According to the New York Times, these conservative groups have already gathered over a million signatures supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The initiative will likely be put to the voters in November. Interestingly, despite vetoing two attempts by the legislature to recognize gay marriage, Gov. Schwarzenegger has said that he will not support the constitutional ban initiative.

The law school blog and podcast from Canada

Scalia Openly Condones Torture

omar@lawiscool.com (Omar Ha-Redeye) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:01:24 GMT

Creating a Legal Storm US Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, made his first major television appearance this week on 60 Minutes. Previously he has severely restricted media access, especially in his court, citing his, First Amendment right not to speak on the radio or television when I do not wish to do so. In 2004, he even had [...]

Creating a Legal Storm

US Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, made his first major television appearance this week on 60 Minutes.

Previously he has severely restricted media access, especially in his court, citing his,

First Amendment right not to speak on the radio or television when I do not wish to do so.

In 2004, he even had his security guards erase a recording of a speech he had made in Mississippi.

Scalia is a known controversial figure on the Supreme Court, going by the name Nino in reference to the storms he creates. He is often remembered for his objection to the Roe v. Wade ruling that allowed abortion in the U.S. in 1973.

He told 60 Minutes,

You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can…I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use… A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change

Smartest Man on Supreme Court of US

Ed Lazarus, author of Closed Chambers, was interviewed by Brian Lamb in 1998,

LAMB: Who’s the smartest member of the Supreme Court now? Mr. LAZARUS: Oh, I don’t whether I could–you know, I don’t know what their IQ scores are. I will say this that–that Justice Scalia is a enormously powerful in–in–intellect. And he has a very powerful writing style. And he’s very sure of himself. And those factors combine to make him extraordinarily influential. He has a–a very steadfast view, although as I point out in the book, he–he’s not always consistent. But–but he puts forward a powerful ideology, and he’s–he’s quick as can be. And–and that makes him very influential.

Support for Torture

Perhaps Scalia’s greatest contemporary controversy is his recent support for the use of torture. In the 60 Minutes interview he stated,

STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?

SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.

STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–

SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

Scalia’s ideas are infiltrating the Canada as well. At a conference in Ottawa last year, Scalia repeated these comments on a panel on terrorism and torture said,

Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’

The statement was in reference to Scalia’s comments on the show,

Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. … He saved hundreds of thousands of lives. …Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?. Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so. ..So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.

And earlier this year, Scalia told the BBC,

You can’t come in smugly and with great self satisfaction and say ‘Oh it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good.’

You can’t?

Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture states,

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Ali on Think Progress cites Human Rights First, who point out torture raises other constitutional questions besides 8th Amendment violations:

[I]t seems Justice Scalia has forgotten about the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Furthermore, a court holding a witness in contempt for refusing to cooperate with a judicial proceeding is, in fact, quite different than an interrogator resorting to physical abuse when a prisoner refuses to talk.

Anne Applebaum dispels The Torture Myth in the Washington Post,

Just for a moment, let’s pretend that there is no moral, legal or constitutional problem with torture. Let’s also imagine a clear-cut case: a terrorist who knows where bombs are about to explode in Iraq. To stop him, it seems that a wide range of Americans would be prepared to endorse “cruel and unusual” methods.

She thinks people like Scalia should stick to their fictional television, and avoid making judgments on subjects they know nothing about.

Applebaum interviews an array of military specialists who say that torture simply doesn’t work, and would provide faulty intelligence,

Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply “not a good way to get information.” In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no “stress methods” at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the “batting average” might be lower: “perhaps six out of ten.” And if you beat up the remaining four? “They’ll just tell you anything to get you to stop.”

Canadians are “idiots”

Scalia’s ideological basis is grounded in an “originalist” and “textualist” interpretation of the Constitution. He condemns judicial activism that introduces flexibility into the Constitution to allow for changing times and values.

Canada adopts the opposite approach, and a need for a broad and liberal reading of the Constitution to change with the times is Constitutionally entrenched.

Such flexibility has allowed for same-sex marriage in Canada, but also allowed women to sit in the Senate in Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), also known as the Persons case, because women were finally legally deemed to be people too.

Privy Council cited Sir Robert Borden in Canadian Constitutional Studies in the Persons case,

The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. The object of the Act was to grant a Constitution to Canada. Like all written constitutions it has been subject to development through usage and convention.

The danger in adopting Scalia’s rigid approach instead is openly apparent. NPR interviewed him yesterday and said,

By this logic, if capital punishment was constitutional in 1791, it would be constitutional today. Theoretically, this means that putting people in stocks in the public square, a punishment used in 1791, is also constitutional.

His response was,

I would say that may be very stupid, but it’s not unconstitutional, if indeed it was a punishment that was at that time accepted.

But a stupid argument is probably better than being called an idiot, which is what Scalia does for those who disagree with his Constitutional interpretation,

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn’t change with society are “idiots.”

Publicity for Money, Or Avoiding Being Demonized?

All of this recent publicity for someone who has so strongly shunned and even attacked the media seems strange.

But the Law Times reports that his current media blitz is part of a recent (subsidized) strategy to improve his his image,

My kids have been working on me to get out and do more public appearances. They think it makes it harder to demonize you — and I agree.

It’s also probably no coincidence that on Monday he released his book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges.

Adam Cohen claims in the New York Times that Scalia’s many antics, which also include obscene gestures and refusing recusal (due to conflict of interest), are bring disrepute to the highest legal institution in the most powerful country on Earth.

Cohen says,

More than any modern justice, Justice Scalia seems intent on presenting himself to the world as an outspoken champion of conservative values. But conservatives are people who believe in respecting and preserving existing institutions. There is nothing conservative about diminishing a great institution like the Supreme Court by making inflammatory and partisan off-the-bench statements and ignoring the rules of ethical judging.

And if you’re looking to avoid being demonized by the media and the public, being the poster boy for Abu Ghraib probably isn’t the best way to do it.

The law school blog and podcast from Canada

Hillary Clinton’s Amazingly Awesome Victory!

omar@lawiscool.com (Omar Ha-Redeye) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:46:27 GMT

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton scored a massive double digit victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary! Except she didn’t. I’m not saying this because the spread between Clinton and Obama was actually 9.3% (which if I remember math class correctly rounds down to 9% instead of up to 10%). Nor am I saying this because Pennsylvania was natural [...]

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton scored a massive double digit victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary!

Except she didn’t.

I’m not saying this because the spread between Clinton and Obama was actually 9.3% (which if I remember math class correctly rounds down to 9% instead of up to 10%).

Nor am I saying this because Pennsylvania was natural Clinton territory and even just a few months back Clinton was running 20 points above Obama:

That’s just trivia.

The real issue is in terms of the numbers game Clinton’s victory didn’t mean anything. Right now the U.S. Democratic presidential campaign is just that: a numbers game. The magic number is 2,024 – that’s the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. Barrack Obama has 1,719 delegates and Hillary Clinton has 1,586 delegates. So how did Clinton’s big surge change the numbers? She got net 12 delegates.

Twelve.

After all the hoopla, the media, the tens of millions of dollars spent she got only 12 net delegates from the primary. For comparison, the last state that voted was Kansas. I don’t remember hearing a lot about Kansas in the news. But Obama got net 14 delegates there. So basically if you take the two states that voted in April, Obama came out two delegates ahead.

That’s not an overwhelming victory for Obama. But look at the total delegate score above. Obama doesn’t need overwhelming victories anymore. Given that delegates are allocated proportionally Clinton is not going to be able to make up that ground.

But what about superdelegates? What about that slew of elected Democratic politicians and party apparatchiks that make up about a fifth of the votes in the convention at Denver? Can’t Clinton use them to win the nomination? Well, right now there are only 259 uncommitted superdelegates. That means that if the uncommitted superdelegates go 3-to-1 for Clinton she’s still losing. Okay, but what if Hillary wins 3-to-1 and maybe peels off some of Obama’s current superdelegats? It’s just as unrealistic as her winning through the states. Here’s a chart from blogger and chef Ezra Klein that shows the movement of superdelegates for Obama and Clinton:

So to wrap it up, Obama has won more states and more votes and it is realistically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. I should mention though, that some disagree:

The law school blog and podcast from Canada