the funniest law review article I've ever read

I know it seems weird to describe a law review article as mildly entertaining, let alone funny, but this article will not disappoint. It’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a while.

Prattle on Hamlet, the Universe and Everything

This is an excerpt from an example problem in a Contracts book describing Hamlet:

“He read the script, which was written in strange, complicated, old-fasioned language. From what he understood of it, it also seemed very sleazy and definitely ‘R’ rated. It was about this dysfunctional Danish family who are heavily into sex and violence. The [main character] talks too much, never has any fun....”

Brian A. Blum, Contracts: Examples and Explanations, 653 (2004). It’s amazing how much Shakespeare’s plays resemble a cross between Jerry Springer and the OC. There’s the one with the twentysomething falling in love with a fourteen year old followed by a double suicide, the wife who coerced her husband into killing the king, the ungrateful daughters who had their father thrown out in the cold, the guy who was upset about not getting picked first in kickball who caused the captain to murder his own wife, and all of the zany antics in the episode about the people falling in love in the woods. Throw in the fact that every play had men dressed as women and you would think old Bill wrote his plays with the late 1990s in mind.

The wife's job

I’ve often said that Lauren works with idiots at her job, but I think this story really shows the extent of that idiocy. One of the best cashiers at her store – she is a several time cashier of the month and well liked by all – was arrested at work last week. Someone had left his credit card at the register, and, like a good entrepreneur, she took it. The card was used at numerous Wal Marts along with the perpetrator’s employee discount card. This is absurd for two reasons. First of all, she’s putting her name in the database as using her card at the exact same time as the stolen card; this made catching her relatively easy. Furthermore, it’s a stolen card. Why does she need 10% off something she’s getting for free? Did she only wanted to steal 90% of the cost of her purchase?

Lauren’s job is so bad, I can understand her getting so mad that she has to let it out by poisoning people, so long as it’s not me.

hair fixing

In response to a comment thread on another blog, these are my Constitutional reasons why the courts shouldn't make lawyers (such as myself) fix their hair. I didn't want to post such a long a boring comment on P-Man's blog since his readers likely don't expect the boring crap you see here.

1st Amendment: By freedom of expression allows me to decide how I wish to be viewed by the public.

6th Amendment: Barring counsel for hair or stylistic reasons furthers no state interest and unreasonably interferes with my client’s right to effective representation.

9th Amendment: God only knows what my unremunerated rights are, so not fixing my hair could be one of them. (Personally, I think it would have been a better argument to say that the right to privacy (which I actually support) is in the 9th Amendment. It just seems like overreaching to talk about the penumbras of everything.)

13th Amendment: The state’s compulsion that I, against my will and for no legitimate state purpose, fix my hair would constitute involuntary servitude.

14th Amendment: Bald people don’t have to fix their hair, so I’m being denied equal protection. Furthermore, my bad hair makes me dissimilarly situated with those with easy-to-fix hair, thus leading to an "as applied" challenge.

5th Amendment: The combination of all of these rights and the penumbras of the penumbras of the Amendments make clear a right to make my own choices about my hair style or lack thereof. In college, having crappy hair certainly helped my right to non-procreation. Furthermore, the original intent of the framers was for lawyers to wear wigs and not fix their hair (that one’s for you, Scalia). It would deny me a fundamental liberty to take away my hair choice. Keep you rules of procedure off my body!

I think I know what article I want to write: The Constitutionality of Courtroom Decorum Rules. If that's not publishable, nothing is.

various things

I came across this quote from the dissent in Dred Scott (the case that overturned the Missouri Compromise and held that a black cannot be a citizen of the US):

"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

This quote was in the full text of Scalia dissent in Casey. Not addressing the merits of the dissent, it disgusts me that the all-knowing editors of our Con Law book edited out his most well reasoned arguments against the majority. Is it that bad for students to hear both sides of the argument? They put in thirteen pages of the majority after all. This also bothered me in the class discussion about Roe. Trying not to sound too full of myself, I think (and Patrick and JP agree) that I could probably articulate the anti-choice viewpoint better than most of the class. Bergen tried to call on people who haven't spoken, and in so doing allowed the bone marrow hypo to go essentially unanswered. Discussing it after class, I argued at least to draw and (again, according to Patrick) possibly bested her on it.
While I see the benefit in trying to get other people to speak, but it bothers me for two reasons. The first is that people should hear both sides of the argument; there is little intellectual value in hearing a law professor (who is published on the topic) arguing against a confused law student. The other reason, this being more personal, is that it was tantamount to punishing me for participating fully in previous class discussions. If I can manage to argue a point on the separation of powers or the Dormant Commerce Clause, why should I be punished for it on the day when I finally have something interesting to say.

I think (again, selfishly) that there should be some sort of reward for helping the class discussion on the boring topics. With blind grading and the fact that professors can't raise a grade for good participation, the only possible benefit would be allowing me to talk in the biggest class discussion of the semester. Not only that, but she would know that, by calling on me, she would at least get an intelligent anti-choice argument beyond the standard "but it is alive, damnit" and the well thought out "you should have known better." Moreover, she moved the discussion in such a manner that it was assumed that there is a right to an abortion encompassed in the right to privacy; we merely argued if the state has an interest sufficient to override that right. I seriously doubt that today in Casey we'll go back to discuss whether the right actually exists in the Constitution. Between the lack of substance in the discussion and the fact that I have a zero percent chance of being called on, I'm not even sure why I'm going to show up.

In retrospect, I was indeed called on in Con Law during the abortion funding cases. Though I wasn't able to talk about abortion, I did get to make a comment on the Tax and Spend Clause. If I'm lucky, I'll get to talk about the effects of the partial birth abortion ban on interstate commerce; after all, she does enjoy calling on me for the Dormant Commerce Clause.

This post really started out simply to put in the Dred Scott quote, but I seem to have gotten off track.

Problem with the brief

For our appellate brief, one issue was whether the employer responded in a timely manner to a complaint. The complaint came on March 30, the response on May 2. I figured less than a week wasn’t too bad, so mentioned the short turn around time. When I started reading my opponent’s brief, he cited some precedent and, though all of the circuit courts may not have adopted the rule yet, apparently there’s a fairly new legal concept that could hurt me: April. I missed the whole friggin’ month. This isn’t the first time I’ve done this; I found a case from March 30, 2005 which I though was two weeks old. It turns out it was closer to six. It’s amazing how much one learns in law school: from the dormant commerce clause to the intricacies and curios of the Gregorian calendar.


Consecutive days without a poisoning: 3

The wife is trying to kill me

Lauren was trying to spray one of our cats to kill the fleas on him, but he was resisting. I get from my brief (for once I actually wasn’t playing Counter Strike) and hold the cat. She starts spraying, trying to go quickly so the cat won’t claw me too badly, when she “misses” (I don’t believe that part) and sprays poison right square in my face.

There I am, holding a wet and kicking cat with insecticide in my eyes. Lauren had to grab the cat to hold him in a towel (apparently it could be bad if he got in his eyes) while I had to go flush my eyes. The sink is too low, so needed to get in the shower. I had to fumble to take off my shoes and what not with my eyes closed, then stumble blindly into the bathroom. I almost tripped over the ledge to the bathtub, but managed to get to the knob to turn on the water. This was also unfortunate, as I turned on the water while standing directly under the shower head, so I was somewhat surprised by the blast of cold water.

Once the water finally warmed up, I then got to stand in the shower for fifteen minutes spraying water in my eyes. I normally take quick showers, so fifteen minutes seems like a long time, but this was worse. Fifteen minutes of just standing there, leaned against the wall getting really hot water in my eyes. Once I finally made it out of the shower, I got to turn my sore, burning eyes back to the stupid brief. I hate my life.

Finally finished

Sorry I haven’t posted in a while; I know that this annoying blog is the only light in many people’s lives. I finally finished the arguments section of the brief. I extra line before hitting the page limit, so maybe I can think of a witty closing sentence. Crap, I just realized that I still need a conclusion, so I’m going to have to cut out a few more lines. I’m not sure why I’m typing in the stream of consciousness, but why not?

Also, I actually got a job yesterday. Oh happy day. Now I have to start cramming for finals again.

The coolest thing I’ve seen in years

I was looking at the google satellite maps from P-Man’s blog, and I found the coolest thing. During the Cold War the US tested more nukes in the US than I’d care to remember. Many of there were in the Nevada Proving Grounds. I was looking around in northern and central Nevada, and I’m pretty sure I’ve found pictures of where they were detonated: A lot of craters, a big friggin’ crater, a fake town we blew up, and a strange level of construction activity.

These may not be actual craters, since many of our tests were underground, in which case these are piles of dirt over grounds zero. Either way, it’s damn cool.

5 teens v. 1 old man

In the article, four juveniles are facing possible felony murder charges when they attempted to beat and rob a sick 64 year old. The (surviving) kids learned a valuable lesson: don't rob a guy who has a gun. After being punched a kicked, the old guy shot one of the little punks in the head. The best part is that the four survivors could be charged with the murder of their friend (I guess WI doesn't have the "defendant's hand" exception to the felony murder rule). I love America.

update: I'm a nerd

After the complaint to the ICW people, I wasn’t expecting much of a response. Much to my surprise, I received a response from none other than Professor McGaugh herself. The email actually said I am “absolutely correct” in my interpretation of rule 10.2(h). After the stunning victory in traffic court, this brings the score to me: 2, the man: 0. Huzzah!

what did she call me?

After class, professor Bergin and I were talking about politics, and she said (something to the effect of) "I think you're more liberal than you give yourself credit for." I'm not sure how to take that. On the one hand, she actually said something about my politics that (to her at least) is a good thing. On the other hand, and this is in all seriousness, this is the absolute first time I've been seriously called a liberal.

I knew this would happen. One day I support gay and women's rights and the next thing I know, I'm a liberal. Not even being anti-affirmative action was enough. I've worked years at crafting my heartless bastard image, and I'm not prepared to give it up.

God bless JP2

The Pope in Poland:


The Pope in Mexico:


The Pope in Australia:


The Pope having fun:


I just like these: