Blogging about nothing.

 
But Mindy is pretty smart, too

Mindy makes an excellent point about the jurisprudential significance of Lawrence v. Texas inasmuch as it revives the concept of substantive due process at a time when many court-watchers thought it dead.

However, I am standing by my argument that the social impact of the Michigan cases will be more widespread and long-lasting than that of Lawrence. The Supreme Court has now made abundantly clear that diversity is a compelling government interest in education. While it is true that many suspected that that had been decided in Bakke, the clarification will undoubtedly have an effect on admission policies nationwide. Importantly, it will be difficult for the Supreme Court to distinguish this holding in later cases -- well, diversity is a compelling government interest with respect to the admission policy at the U. of Michigan but not at the U. of Alabama? The use of substantive due process, however, has increased and decreased, been cheered and jeered, many times in the Court's history. If the Court were so inclined, it could certainly limit the use of it in the Lawrence case to the specific facts and narrow issue in the Lawrence case. I'm just skeptical that the majority in Lawrence will be able to revive substantive due process in other contexts.


posted by Jennifer at 8:35 AM

 
Mark is the smartest

I think Mark's post proves that he is the smartest among us.

I also think that we think need to talk about Legally Blonde 2. Hooray for Reese Witherspoon! Hooray for pink bunting!


posted by Jennifer at 8:24 AM

 
No More Law(ma)!

Okay. I am so relieved that this blog is no longer dealing with law. I was tired of running Google searches to figure out what you people were talking about.

Let's talk about "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines". Why did T-1 (Arnold) age? I thought his Terminator model was a machine covered in some sort of flesh-like material. Even if T-1 is an "older" model, why would anyone designing it not prevent it from aging? I MEAN - COME ON!

Arnold and Harrison Ford should really get into the "Grumpy/Grumpier Old Men" franchise - these action roles are like shoving a square peg into a round hole.

That said, I CANNOT WAIT TO SEE T-3! I love action films.
posted by MARK at 7:58 AM

 
Law Schmaw. I bought a convertible!

I agree with Jen's topic shift. I have had it with law. I've been trying to get around to responding to Jen's inane suggestion that the affirmative action case was the biggest case o' the term. But, you see, I bought a convertible on Thursday, so I've had to drive it around incessantly.

Here's a brief rejoinder, then back to the material goodness of a well-crafted German automobile:

The affirmative action case basically said this: Powell was right. Now the Court endorses his Bakke view. So pretty much, things are the way we thought (but weren't sure) that they were.

Lawrence v. Texas did the impossible -- it ADDED substance to the due process clause in the year 2003. Said that there is MORE TO the substantive due process provision than there was before. 'Member substantive due process? We're not taking it away -- we're giving you more -- and it has nothing to do with punitive damages. KEEEERAZY.

Hoorah! I'm celebrating by driving around my aquarius blue convertible.



So that's why I think, between the two, Lawrence was the more important case of the term.
posted by mindse at 2:24 PM

 
Law Shmaw. I'm getting married!

I have been told that one of the most fun things you get to do as a bride (a term which apparently covers the entire period from the proposal to the end of the honeymoon), is shop for your wedding gown. I'm not sure if "fun" accurately describes my experience, but it certainly was amusing. It must, therefore, be blogged for the enjoyment of The Academy.

My first gown-shopping appointment (yes, you have to make one) was at a "Shoppe" in Hershey, PA. I could not smell chocolate in the air and I was not served wine during the shopping, so I'll just disspell two fun myths right away.

We were greeted by the owner, Anne (her real name is being disguised) and she sat us down for a little get-to-know-eachother chat. Anne handed me a form to complete and informed us that because she is a psychologist, she likes to get to know "her brides" better in order to find the "perfect dress." That was a charming idea, but when I got to the fourth or fifth question, I hesitated. It asked who employs me.

I said, "Anne, why are you interested in my employer?" (thinking it an odd question given that I was shopping for a wedding dress rather than an apartment or a house). Turns out, what she really wanted to know was my profession. You should have seen her eyes light up when I said I was a lawyer! So, I eliminated any need for subtlety at the point. "Anne, if you want to talk about prices, let's go ahead and do that. My budget is . . . . and I need to
know what costs are included and which you add on."

I think Anne began to realize at that point that I was not your average blushing bride.

Later on in the get-to-know-eachother session, Anne asked about my hobbies. Half jokingly, I said, "I'm a lawyer, I don't have any." (Only half-joking, of course, because I don't really have any hobbies anymore unless you count sex or walking my dog, but you can't put those on a resume.) Then, I said that I used to ride horses. "Oh!" she exclaimed, "my son is an Arabian horse trainer in California." Thus ensued a lengthy conversation between Anne and my mom about horses. (It also prompted an inappropriate comment from me later about
all male horse trainers being gay.)

My friend, Heather, and I excused ourselves to the ladies room, whereupon we said horrible things about Anne. Upon our return, Anne paid us no attention. Finally, Heather said, "Excuse me, but we didn't come here to buy a horse, Anne. Maybe we should talk about dresses."

I'm certain that Anne realized at that point that she was not going to be able to control the sale as well as she normally does.

So, we finally began to discuss actual wedding gowns (after about half an hour ahd already passed). I showed Anne about 8 different designs that, according to theknot.com, were available at her shop. Anne insisted that she couldn't show me any of those dresses, though, until she understood "the concept" of my wedding. When I told her that it was going to be in a lodge with wood floors and a fireplace and that "the concept" would be cozy and intimate, she LITERALLY swept my designs off her desk and announced that I would not be wearing ANY of those dresses.

The color began to rise in my cheeks. After I explained to her that I was interested in certain design ELEMENTS of each of the dresses that she had just swept off her desk rather than the dresses themselves, she did look mildly embarassed. But, she didn't deign to look at my designs again.

In any event, once we got down to nuts and bolts and she started bringing out dresses, things got MUCH better. In fact, to Anne's credit, the dress I purchased was the first one she showed me. I tried on about 10 others, of course, to make sure I really liked the first one (and to piss off Anne).

My favorite moment BY FAR during the trying on was when Anne said the following to me: "This dress makes your hips look like they are going from here to eternity." Although I enjoyed Anne's classic film reference, I actually found the dress to be quite flattering. I responded with a snappy: "I'll have you know that my fiance loves my child-bearing hips!" (which is true, and one of the many reasons I find him to be so charming).

Anne was not very good at sucking up. I was not fussed over. I was encouraged to decide quickly. In fact, when Heather told me at one point that I should not rush, and could "try on 20 more dresses if I wanted to," Anne hissed "No. She can not." Oh well. Not exactly a bridal diva experience.

Nonetheless, I got a really pretty dress and I still have the other really fun thing to look forward to. Shoe shopping!


posted by Jennifer at 10:55 AM