mcdspot

You’d think this judicial opinion ruling that Satan cannot be sued would be more fun, but it’s not.

Hortensio:
Sir, you say well, and well you do conceive,
And since you do profess to be a suitor,
You must, as we do, gratify this gentleman,
To whom we all rest generally beholding.

Tranio:
Sir, I shall not be slack; in sign whereof,
Please ye we may contrive this afternoon,
And quaff carouses to our mistress’ health,
And do as adversaries do in law,
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.

The Taming Of The Shrew Act 1, scene 2, 269–277

I was surprised to learn in law school that the right to privacy is not expressly guaranteed by the Constitution, but is extracted from portions of the Bill of Rights and, depending on which case you read, from the Fourteenth Amendment. Only recently have I come across the article which essentially brought the right into being, originally published in the Harvard Law Review by Samuel Warren and Louis D. Brandeis in 1890. It is a long but fascinating read and can be found here.

Is this the best Sotomayor’s critics can do? Attack her “thorough . . . but sometimes leaden” writing style? Grasp those straws, folks.

“Many all too often confuse the outcomes in cases for a political philosophy instead of recognizing that judges do not make law, they simply apply the laws Congress and the president have passed.”

– Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 1998, lest we forget

Best oddball judicial opinions.

“Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don’t tell me I’m the only one that heard that. Mr. Martinez, did you hear that ringing?…

Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I’m kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going.”

It amuses me to think that right now there are several interns at the GOP and Fox News headquarters reading through the 3,600 legal opinions published by Judge Sotomayor during her 17 years on the federal bench, scanning for political fodder. Those poor saps.

Concerning the recent Pirate Bay tomfoolery, one need only consider Google.

You may have heard about the guilty verdict that was recently handed down against the owners of Pirate Bay, a torrent search site. They are appealing the case, however, and have issued the following message on their blog, which is worth publishing:

TPB FTW

So the first verdict finally came, almost 3 years after the raid. You might have heard about it in the news…

You, our beloved users, know that this little speedbump on the information super highway is nothing more than just, a little bump. Todays verdict has already been appealed by us and will be taken to the next level of court (and that will take another 2 or 3 years!)

The site will live on! We are more determined than ever that what we do is right. Millions of users are a good proof of that.

We have seen that some people that we dont know have started collecting donations for us, so we can pay those silly fines. We firmly ask you NOT to do this. Do not gather or send any money. We do not want them since we will not pay any fines!

If you really want to help out, here is a list:
* Seed those torrents a little bit more than you usually do!
* Buy a t-shirt and show the world where your sympathy is.
* If you live in Europe, vote in the election for the EU parliament in June.
* Continue to build the internets! Start more bittorrent sites, blog more, start your own lobby group, create, remix, mash up and continue to grow more heads on this amazing hydra that we know as the internets!
* Do not be afraid of using the network. Invite your friends to this and other file sharing systems. Calm people down if they’re upset. We need to stay united.

And say it loud say it proud! We are all The Pirate Bay!

I’ve always been curious exactly how a filibuster works. I know they’re very effective, because they are used every single legislative session in Alabama, often stalling or killing bills I would support. Well, it’s happing right now. A bill has been proposed to remove sales taxes on groceries, and it failed to get enough votes last week to pass. So it’s back up for a vote, and apparently someone is worried that it will get enough votes this time because a full-fledged filibuster has begun. You can read the full text of the filibuster order here. Essentially, it’s an arbitrary and silly rundown of what issues will not be the order of the day. An example:

Representative Black:
HB1998
Entertainment incentives, providing for table games and full-blown casinos, ownership of existing facilities transferred to Judiciary Committee chair, country music stars access provided for, income tax exemptions for showgirls.

…

Representative Graham
HB4973
Government control act, Paul Hubbert declared King, tax exemption for bananas to feed 800-pound gorillas.

It seems like this sort of legislative tactic should be banned. But no one would ban it, for fear that they would be depriving themselves of a tool they might need one day. I think I can hear Karl Marx laughing.

Maybe I’m biased, but I really, really like this judge.

The Summum case blows my mind. Exactly how much constitutional credence should we give to every hairbrained cult religion out there?

Peter ‘P’Ta Mon’ John.

Why aren’t there any witchlawyers?

Boldly stated by F. E. Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead in open court:

Judge: What do you suppose that I am on the bench for, Mr. Smith?
Smith: It is not for me to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence.
__________

Judge: Are you trying to show contempt for this court, Mr Smith?
Smith: No, My Lord. I am attempting to conceal it.
__________

Judge: Really, Mr Smith, do give this Court credit for some little intelligence.
Smith: That is the mistake I made in the Court below, My Lord.
__________

Judge: I have listend very carefully, Mr. Smith, to what you have said, but I am none the wiser.
Smith: None the wiser perhaps, my Lord, but far better informed.
__________

(In a case against a tram company after a young boy was hit by a tram and rendered blind)

Judge: Poor boy–poor boy–blind. Put him on a chair so that the jury can see him.
Smith: Perhaps your Honour would like to have the boy passed round the jury box.
Judge: That is a most improper remark.
Smith: It was provoked by a most improper suggestion.
Judge: Mr. Smith, have you ever heard of a saying by Bacon–the great Bacon–that youth and discretion are ill-wedded companions.
Smith: Yes, I have. And have you ever heard of a saying by Bacon–the great Bacon–that a much talking Judge is like a ill-tuned cymbal?
Judge: You are extremely offensive, young man.
Smith: As a matter of fact, we both are, and the only difference between us is that I am trying to be, and you cannot help it.

booyah!

10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know.

Is it copyright protected?

Classes My Top-Tier Law School Should Have Offered as Warnings About the Profession.

Cutting and Pasting Legal Lingo

Explaining Business Associations to the People Who Are Running Them

4 A.M. Word Processing and the Law

Ethics of Conspicuous Consumption

Forwarding E-mails: Theory and Practice: Seminar

Arbitrary-Deadline Negotiation Strategies

Crying Quietly: Clinic

Jeans-Friday Advocacy Workshop

Cutting and Pasting II: Plural to Singular

From the New York Times:

Four pages into his dissent on Monday in an achingly boring dispute between pay phone companies and long distance carriers, John G. Roberts Jr., the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, put a song lyric where the citation to precedent usually goes:

“The absence of any right to the substantive recovery means that respondents cannot benefit from the judgment they seek and thus lack Article III standing,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. ” ‘When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.’ Bob Dylan, Like a Rolling Stone, on Highway 61 Revisited (Columbia Records 1965).”

Check out the most-cited rockers in judicial opinions: