... And Justice For Pakistan

In his remarks at the Law School today, Mr. Hamid Khan began with a brief history of Pakistan since the country became independent in 1947. He noted that there have been repeated episodes of military dictatorship. The first military regime devolved into civil war in 1971, leading to a split between West and East Pakistan into two independent states: Pakistan and Bangladesh. Mr. Khan also noted that many of Pakistan’s current problems with jihadist groups originated in the American government’s cooperation with General Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s. America sided with Zia to support the mujahideen who were fighting against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. Many if not most of these fighters were not from Pakistan or Afghanistan at all, including Osama bin Laden, who came into the country from Saudi Arabia.

After the Soviet threat went away, Pakistan dropped off America’s radar screen until September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, at that point in time, another military dictator had recently seized power in Pakistan: Pervez Musharraf. Hamid Khan’s primary argument today was that President Bush has repeated many of America’s former mistakes in his relationship with Musharraf since 9/11. Once again, America is seen in Pakistan as supporting a military dictatorship in the face of strong democratic opposition.

As Mr. Khan noted, Musharraf has spent most of the last twelve months using his power to undermine democracy and the rule of law in the country, but the tide of public opinion has increasingly turned against him. The first major break occurred in March of 2007, when Iftikhar Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, began to question the military government’s extralegal detention of thousands of people, as well as financial corruption and misdoing among the military leadership. Musharraf responded by trying to intimidate Chaudhry into stepping down, but Chaudhry stood up to him.

This act of defiance mobilized a strong movement in Pakistan for rule of law reforms, spearheaded by the lawyers of the country. The lawyer’s movement achieved an historic victory in July of 2007 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chaudhry and against Musharraf. Building on this momentum, they sought to put further pressure on Musharraf by bringing constitutional objections to his candidacy for the Presidency. Musharraf responded by suspending Pakistan’s Constitution and placing most of the country’s judges under house arrest unless they agreed to take an oath of loyalty to him. Shockingly, most of these judges remain under house arrest even now, almost four months after Musharraf suspended the Constitution.

Despite this, and despite his attempts to rig the country’s elections, Musharraf was roundly rejected by the people of Pakistan in the elections this month. Mr. Khan depicted this as a crucial juncture for the country, a test of whether the democratic process would be respected. But he expressed deep cynicism about the acts of the Bush Administration, which has urged the victorious political parties to work with Musharraf in forming a government. From Mr. Khan’s perspective, it is time for Musharraf to go.

There are strong reasons to agree with that, and there are especially strong reasons to be critical of the way that the Bush Administration has treated Musharraf with kid gloves. Not only is the President attempting to deny the clear results of the recent elections, but he has consistently refused to object to Musharraf’s subversion of the rule of law over the past year. This is especially troubling coming from a President who has paid such lip service to America’s role in promoting democracy around the world. President Bush seems oblivious to the fact that American support for military dictatorships breeds deep resentment against the United States, and that jihadist and terrorist groups feed on that resentment. Thus, support for Musharraf in the long term could prove to be a grave mistake.

But there are reasons to be hopeful. The recent election demonstrated dramatically that Pakistan’s people are ready for a change (sound familiar?). They rejected the military regime and voted in large numbers for the most moderate, democratic choices that were available. If these parties can hold together, and get rid of Musharraf’s stranglehold on the government, there is a window of opportunity.

Getting rid of Musharraf is only step one, however. Mr. Khan did not go into any specifics about what a post-Musharraf government will look like, and the two parties that will form a coalition government have many disagreements. Musharraf hasn’t only been bad for the rule of law, but he has also devoted the government’s resources to enriching his military cronies, rather than to making the much-needed educational and economic reforms to create real opportunities for Pakistan’s people.

If the new government can withstand the test of holding together to get rid of Musharraf, it will face the even tougher challenge of passing real reforms that benefit the country as a whole, rather than any favored constituencies. Hopefully, the American government will realize that our narrow anti-terror focus should be broadened, and we will divert some of our aid to the task of helping the new government move the country forward.

Posted by Thane Rehn

This Week @ ACS

2/25 - 2/29

MONDAY February 25
6:10 PM; JG 501
Join the 1L Planning Committee

If you're a 1L and you like ACS, take this opportunity to get a little more involved. The ACS 1L Planning Committee will be helping to plan social and substantive events. Stop by our meeting tomorrow (today) and bless us with your ideas. Not a big time commitment.

Email Laird at len2105@columbia.edu if you have any questions.

Pizza Served.

WEDNESDAY February 27
12:20 PM; JG 102

...And Justice for Pakistan

Hamid Khan is a Supreme Court lawyer, former President of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association and the senior Vice President of a major Pakistani political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. He will talk about his experience at the forefront of the struggle for justice and the rule of law in his country.
Co-sponsored by SALSA and Qanun.

Lunch Served (Roti Roll.)
12:20 PM; JG 102

THURSDAY February 28
7:00 PM; Lenfest Cafe

Quizzo!

You know the deal. Email Renita Sharma at rns2124@columbia.edu to sign up.
Beer and Pizza Served.

Scandal at 1600: The US Attorneys Affair

This afternoon, ACS welcomed Preet Bharara, a CLS alum and chief counsel to Senator Charles Schumer, to discuss his investigation into the U.S. Attorneys firing scandal. Bharara graduated from the Law School in 1993 and then worked at a large New York firm, a smaller New York firm, and then the U.S. Attorney’s Office before taking his current position with Senator Schumer; he noted that each new job brought a smaller salary and smaller office.

Bharara began by stating his belief that the firing scandal matters, even though the President can terminate U.S Attorneys as he wishes, because it is critical that people have faith in the Department of Justice to strive for excellence in its work and avoid compromising the quality of its work to serve partisan purposes.

Bharara remarked that the scandal and fallout, like so many tragedies, are comprised of three acts. Act one began in December 2006 when more than a half dozen U.S. Attorneys were fired with no reason given for their dismissal. Because two of the fired Attorneys held California posts, Senator Feinstein began to inquire into the firings. In January 2007, Bharara began to discuss with Senator Schumer the possibility of hearings to investigate the firing, which then began in February.

As the hearings proceeded, questions about the reasons for the firings went unanswered or answers offered quickly collapsed upon further inquiry. For example, some individuals questioned said that the firing were a reflection of the Attorneys’ poor job performances; however, written evaluations demonstrated that in every case but one the fired Attorneys had received extremely positive performance reviews.

The investigation into whose idea the firings had been proved equally troubling. In a series of depositions, the individuals who comprised the core leadership of the Department of Justice denied responsibility for planning the firings. Even Attorney General Gonzales denied a role in formulating the plan to dismiss the Attorneys. Despite Congress and the public’s growing contempt for these denials, the Attorney General did not resign following the hearings and the President stated that he had more confidence in Gonzales than ever before.

The second act of the tragedy concerns Gonzales’ role advising the President while serving as White House Counsel. On March 10, 2004, as Attorney General Ashcroft lay in a hospital intensive-care unit recovering from surgery, Deputy (and Acting) Attorney General James Comey received a phone call informing him that Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card were headed to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to sign a document reauthorizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program, (which requires reauthorization every 45 days) after Comey had refused to reauthorize, concluding there was no longer legal justification for the program. Comey headed to the hospital and when Gonzales and Card arrived, Ashcroft refused to sign the reauthorization, noting that he could not even if he wished to, as he had temporarily transferred his power to Comey.

The next day, Comey resigned his office, angry over the administration’s attempt to persuade an ill man into signing off on the program once the Acting Attorney General had refused. Indeed, perhaps as many as ten senior Department of Justice officials threatened to submit their resignations in the aftermath. Several days later, the administration backed down and agreed to make changes in the Terrorist Surveillance Program. However, once this tale was related by Comey to a Congressional committee during his testimony about the firing scandal, Gonzales’ reputation was further damaged and calls for his resignation increased.

The third act, as told by Bharara, consisted of Gonzales’ continuing struggle to respond to Congressional committee questions. When he testified about the firings, he was unable to recall answers he had previously given the committee and failed to respond to questions seeking very basic information, such as the number of employees actually terminated in the firings. By August of 2007, nearly all of the leadership of the Department of Justice had resigned and soon Gonzales would follow.

Bharara said that as a result of the firing scandal, protocol at the Department of Justice has changed. For example, hiring practices have been altered such that applicants’ political leanings no longer affect their job prospects. In responding to questions, Bharara noted that the fired Attorneys have landed on their feet, as the hearings actually made clear their talents, rather than exposing any faults.

Finally, Bharara emphasized that the president was free to fire U.S Attorneys as he pleased, but that in this instance the firings were problematic because they seemed to indicate some particular plan, yet the Department of Justice failed to supply answers as to why the firings occurred and where the command to fire came from.

Scandal at 1600: The US Attorneys Affair

Tomorrow at 12:20 in JG 105, join ACS for Scandal at 1600: The US Attorneys Affair. Preet Bharara, chief counsel to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and a former assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, will discuss his work for the Judiciary Committee. Bharara is heading the investigation into the Bush administrations' firing of eight U.S Attorneys, allegedly for political purposes, and the resulting fallout. A CLS alum described as sort of the bad boy of the Law Review by a former classmate, Bharara worked in private practice for several years before serving as an assistant US Attorney from 2000 to 2005 where he prosecuted various mafia families.

No Day is Super When You're Being Detained Indefinitely

This afternoon, ACS was excited to welcome Jonathan Hafetz of the Liberty and National Security Project of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU.

He began by providing an overview of the recent history of Guantanamo litigation, which has been going on since about 2002. In that year, the Bush administration made several key decisions (like deciding not to follow the Geneva Conventions) that led to the current “special prison” situation in Guantanamo and around the world. Despite how long this has been going on, the rights of the detainees have never been clearly determined. There are currently some large cases that seem likely to clear up some of the confusion.

Hafetz focused on Guantanamo specifically, because it is emblematic (and the most iconic one) of the administration’s extra-legal detention centers. Hafetz sees Guantanamo as representative of a larger effort to establish prisons that exist outside of the law.

When lawyers became aware of the situation in Guantanamo, they began attempting to represent the detainees. In 2004, Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that Guantanamo detainees had no right to habeas. Many more cases were subsequently filed and more lawyers began visiting Guantanamo.

The process was then derailed. In December of 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act. It contained some prohibitions on cruel treatment, but its most significant effect was to strip detainees of Federal habeas rights.

In 2006, the Supreme Court decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which challenged the legality of using military commissions to try suspects at Guantanamo. The Court sidestepped the constitutional challenge to the Detainee Treatment Act by saying it didn’t apply to pending habeas cases (of which there were about 200). They then struck down the commissions on the grounds that they violated the Geneva Conventions.

Later that same year, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which gave legislative approval to the commissions struck down in Hamdan. To deal with the Court’s ruling on the pending habeas cases, the act stripped all habeas rights retroactively and replaced them with a less robust system of adjudication, with the possibility of appeal to the DC Circuit Court.

In February of 2007, the DC Circuit upheld the Military Commissions Act’s suspension of habeas as constitutional because enemy combatants are not U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court initially denied review of this case. Then, on a petition for rehearing, they changed course and agreed to hear it.

Another important case pending decision pending decision is Boumediene v. Bush, which contains two major issues: (1) the question of whether the constitutional right to habeas corpus is limited to the geographic United States. This has broad implications for enemy combatants all over the world. (2) If combatants on foreign soil have habeas rights, is the alternative provided by the Commissions Act a constitutionally adequate substitute? (There are a number of serious flaws in the system).

These issues are now complicated by separate litigation that has proceeded under the Detainee Treatment Act since its passage. There are now separate petitions for review under the substitute scheme, which itself may be ruled unconstitutional.

A recent DC Circuit ruling expanded their power of review of status tribunal and allowed them to look at all of the relevant evidence that led to a conviction, instead of the more limited record they had previously been sent. An en banc hearing on the case was denied 5-5, and the government has petitioned for cert on an expedited schedule so that the case can be heard this term.

Hafetz believes that the Supreme Court will have to clarify the legal rules in Guantanamo in some of these decisions, which will be a big step for detainees. He views Guantanamo as one island in an archipelago of a new kind of prison set up to avoid legal processes.

Clarification of the legal rights of detainees will hopefully lead to some positive change in a dire situation. Before last week, of the 750 inmates that had been at Guantanamo bay, only 5 had ever been charged with any crime. (It is now around a dozen).

Thanks to Jonathan Hafetz for this interesting talk!

Gitmo Tuesday

Tomorrow at 12:20 in JG 107, join ACS for Gitmo Tuesday: No Day is Super When You're Detained Indefinitely. Jonathan Hafetz of the Liberty and National Security Project of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law will be discussing upcoming developments in detainee litigation currently before federal courts. To get a taste of what's on tap, check out his recent blog posting on the use of special courts to handle terrorism prosecutions or his article in The Nation on Gitmo.

This Week @ACS

2/18--2/22

TUESDAY February 19
12:20 PM; JG 107

Gitmo Tuesday: No Day is Super When You're Detained Indefinitely

Jonathan Hafetz is counsel for the Justice Program at NYU's Brennan Center. He will give a review of recent, current, and upcoming developments in detainee and Habeas Corpus litigation before federal courts.

Lunch Served.

WEDNESDAY February 20
12:20 PM; JG 105

Inducing Labor: Unions and the 2008 Election
Recent decisions by the National Labor Relations Board have been considered by some to be detrimental to labor. Mitchell Rubenstein, a practicing labor attorney for NYSUT and an Adjunct Professor at St. John's Law and New York Law School, will present labor's perspective while Peter Moss, a pro-business attorney for Jackson and Lewis, will defend the decisions by the NLRB. Both will also discuss the effects the 2008 election might have on the field of labor law. Professor Mark Barenberg will moderate.
Co-sponsored by the Federalist Society.

Lunch Served.

THURSDAY February 21
12:20 PM; JG 105

Scandal at 1600: The US Attorneys Affair
Preet Bharara, chief counsel to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and a former assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, has been described by Time Magazine as "the point man on the probe" into the US attorneys' firings. Respected on both sides of the aisle, Preet will discuss his work for the Judiciary Committee and the nature of this investigation.

Lunch Served.

The Wu'Tierney Factor II

Due to the unfortunate absence of Professor Tierney (who is getting out the vote in Paris), the title was changed to the slightly less catchy “Wu’Persily Factor.” A panel consisting of Professors Wu and Persily, as well as students David Gringer (3L) and Steve Nadel (2L) dissected Super Tuesday and offered their opinions on the race.

Professor Wu started by noting that, “if you’re into politics, this is just a great time to be alive.” He found Super Tuesday very interesting and claimed that he didn’t understand what was going on with American politics this year. Why, for example, did Obama carry Alaska but not San Francisco? He thinks there are factors here people are missing, and he doesn’t know exactly what they are.

Professor Wu compared the upcoming dynamic to a cartoon grudge match, where each candidate gets one really good shot at the other. First, February seems to favor Obama, and he has a month to exploit that. Then, March, with Texas and Ohio, seems to shift the other way and give Clinton an advantage. The question is whether she can survive February in order to take the race back in March, and, if she does, whether she can win decisively then.

With regards to the delegate totals, Wu predicted that Clinton will have a total lead of about 100 after everything is tallied. Obama will be seeking to even up the score in February and try to gain an edge. If neither can knock the other out during their strongest month, then the election moves into uncharted territory, and perhaps all the way to the convention.

Professor Persily began by offering some generalizations that he said were “about 80% true.” He noted that, for the most part, Clinton is getting the larger share of the Latino vote (by about 2:1), less educated whites, older voters, and women. On the other hand, Obama is winning among African American, higher educated whites, and whites in red states. Professor Persily admitted that this oversimplified things. For example Obama did well in the southern states, but also managed to carry Connecticut and Delaware. Obama also seems to have a natural advantage in caucuses.

Persily personally thought Clinton did much better than expected on Tuesday, especially in California. To win that by such a significant margin bodes well for her.

Additionally, he’s very concerned about the way this race is going because he’s worried that this is going to end up depending on the most undemocratic aspects of the primary process. In a race this close, three things come into play that candidates can’t control. (1) Delegate apportionment. (2) Superdelegates. (3) The Florida/Michigan votes, which might be reinstated despite not really having contested elections.

On the Republican side, Persily thinks McCain wrapped it up last night.

Steve Nadel, who worked on the Romney campaign, had some insights into the Republican contest. First, he discussed Romney’s campaign strategy, which was to win the big states early and knock out McCain and Giuliani. It appeared over the summer that everyone who saw Romney liked him, so they aimed to increase his exposure. When other candidates starting coming to the fore, Romney basically fell off the map. Nadel thinks this speaks poorly of him as a candidate.

Nadel thinks the Republican primary is over, and that everyone except the CNN commentators realize this. He does not think Huckabee can win, but thinks the governor might still be relevant.

As for the Democrats, Nadel is “amazed at how long it’s going to take”. He expected like Clinton would walk away with the nomination early, like everyone else. Obama has really shown impressive staying power and ability to enlarge his natural constituency. He’d still give it to Clinton, though, because Obama now has to win big in places not suited to him.

David Gringer began by talking about the media. They are having a huge effect on this race, and he wanted to highlight just how badly they’ve done. He also pointed out that endorsements don’t seem to actually mean anything to voters, only to the media.

In Gringer’s view, perhaps the most important aspect of the campaign is organization. The strength of the candidate’s ground team in each state seems to have a huge effect on the outcome. Obama’s team in Iowa and Clinton’s in New Hampshire were particularly effective, and he is wondering where they will be sent next.

Attempting to explain the strange voting results noted by Professor Wu, Gringer hypothesized that there are two different kind of Democratic voters at issue here. What he calls the “machine” wing of the Democratic party dominates in places like New York and California, places where Democrats dominate and have established power structures. These states seem to favor Clinton. By contrast, states like Idaho and Kansas don’t have “machine” structures, and there have been recent grassroots organizing efforts to rebuild the Democratic Party in these states. These non-machine states favor Obama.

Gringer uses this model to suggest that we might see surprising results. For example, Louisana, thought to be an Obama stronghold, has a strong machine structure. On the other hand, Texas, which is thought to be likely Clinton territory, has more of a grassroots organization structure. He is excited to see how the next few months turn out.

A very interesting presentation from a great panel. Thanks to all who participated and attended. For those who missed out, it looks like we will soon need the Wu’Tierney Factor III.

A Toast to the Constitution: Temperance, A Benevolent Creator/Brewmaster, Happiness & Avoiding the Gout

Here's the toast from the 222^nd Annual Constitutional Law Mixer, held at Columbia Law School on February 4, 2008. As in years past, the event was jointly hosted by the local chapters of the American Constitution Society, the Federalist Society, and the Constitution Law faculty here at Columbia.

First, I want to thank ACS & FedSoc for inviting me to give a toast at the 222nd Annual Constitutional Law Mixer. It's an honor to be a part of a tradition that predates both interchangeable parts and modern plumbing.

As Chancellor Kent was known to say: "Our annual Con Law Mixer? Yeah, that's kind of a big deal."

---

Back in May of last year, I stumbled across Robert Harris's review of the Barbara Holland book The Joy of Drinking. In Harris's review, he noted Holland's research into the role alcohol played in the creation of the United States Constitution. Harris writes that:

[I]n 1787, two days before their work was done, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention “adjourned to a tavern for some rest, and according to the bill they drank 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, 8 of whiskey, 22 of port, 8 of hard cider and 7 bowls of punch so large that, it was said, ducks could swim around in them. Then they went back to work and finished founding the new Republic.” Note the 55 delegates and 54 bottles of Madeira. Which founder was slacking?

PG, a recent CLS graduate and the only person I know whose Constitutional leanings led her to be an active member of both ACS and the Federalist Society, speculated that Thomas Mifflin – at the time the sitting President of Pennsylvania and a Quaker prior to his expulsion for serving in the Continental Army – was the teetotaler; however, given the amount of drink involved, it's unsurprising that the identity of the true abstainer would be lost to history.
Perhaps it was the drink, but there's so much about the Constitution that's been lost to history, so much that the Founders forgot to tell us about the meaning and the crafting of this founding document:

• Dear Founders, is that a comma, a semi-colon, or a fleck of dirt?


• O Breech-pants-wearing Founders, is the office of the Vice President firmly seated within the executive branch, or is it an extra-constitutional floater, like the extra outfielder in a game of slow-pitch softball?


• O Founders, did you really believe that human nature would permit the loser of the Presidential election to serve as a good Vice-President to the winner?


• Founders, why-oh-why did you decide to capitalize nearly every noun in the Constitution? ...and what's the deal with the handful you didn't capitalize? (...and 1L's: That's a gangbuster note topic, by the way.)


• O Founders, are there secret messages in your tortured and inconsistent spellings?

Ultimately, we just don't know the answers to any of these vital questions, so we're left to make like the founders and drink a little Madeira, claret, whiskey, port and hard cider — maybe that will bring some clarity. (Incidentally, I was told that this event would have a bowl of punch so large that ducks could swim in it. Maybe that's coming later.)

In finishing my toast and finally raising a glass, I want to end with a meditation.

Let's meditate upon how the Constitution would have looked if Ben Franklin had had more creative control over the text. After all, historians report that when Thomas Jefferson sent Franklin a draft of the Declaration of Independence containing the line "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable," Franklin returned it to him with the last three words crossed out and replaced by "self-evident." Surely the person responsible for this memorable and meaningful term into the Declaration of Independence could have helped us more with the Constitution. (By the way, for those of you who are measuring the productivity of your lives against the lives of the Founders or choosing your political candidates on the basis of age, please note that Thomas Jefferson was all of 33 years old when he helped draft the Declaration of Independence.)

Now, I happen to know what Franklin would have done if he'd had his way with our overly short & oft-confusing Constitution. He would have included two final clauses.

In fact, I know which clauses Franklin would have inserted.

Truth be told, I find the tension between these two clauses to be roughly analogous to the on-going dialogue that occurs between the Federalist Society & ACS.

The first clause is a quote of Franklin's, taken from Poor Richard's Almanack, 1734. To me, this is the Federalist Society clause: "Be temperate in wine, in eating, girls, and sloth, or the gout will seize you and plague you both."

The second clause does not appear in any published writing of Franklin's, but has been broadly attributed to him. Naturally, the lack of textual basis for this quote (and its feel-good character) makes it more appropriate for ACS. The clause is: "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

So please join me in raising a glass: Here's to Franklin, to the other Founders, to their strange and wondrous Constitution, to ACS, to the Federalist Society, to being happy, and – above all – to trying our best to avoid the gout.

CHEERS!

THIS WEEK @ ACS

2/4 - 2/7

MONDAY February 4

222nd Annual Constitutional Law Mixer

Come join all of this spring's Constitutional Law professors and the 1L class for good food, drinks, and a toast to the founding fathers.

Co-sponsored by the Federalist Society.

Drinks and food served.

4:15 PM; JG Annex

TUESDAY February 5

Super Tuesday Watching Party @ 1020

Super Tuesday may very well mark the climax of this very exciting and important presidential primary season. Join the Law School's political groups in watching the results come in from 22 states, including New York.

Free Open Bar & Food

7:30 PM; 1020 (the bar), 110th & Amsterdam

WEDNESDAY February 6
The Wu'Tierney Factor II: Super Tuesday Recap
Campaign veterans David Gringer (3L) and Steve Nadel (2L) and Professor Nate Persily will join Professors Tierney and Wu in reviewing the results of Super Tuesday and assessing the state of both races.
Co-sponsored by the Federalist Society.
Lunch Served.
12:15 PM; JG 105

THURSDAY February 7

1L Planning Committee First Meeting

Members of the Committee will have the opportunity to work with the ACS Board on developing and running new events, choosing bars for happy hours and quizzo, and much more. The Committee is open to everyone, the time committment will be flexible. We encourage you all to come to our first meeting this Thursday and get involved!

Drinks and Snacks Served.

4:15 PM; WJH 304

Super Tuesday Post-Game!

Is John McCain the anointed nominee? Or will Romney rally?

Will Clinton and Obama split the vote and take this thing to the convention? Or will one of them score a decisive victory?

Everything is on the line for these candidates, and to top things off, it's also Mardi Gras! (Could things possibly get more exciting?)

With all the hype surrounding Super Tuesday, chances are you'll be looking for a place to sort out the results the morning after. Come join Professors Wu and Tierney as they lead a panel discussion on the results of Tuesday's contest and what it means for the general election.

Wednesday, February 6, 12:15 PM, JG 105