The Academy

2003-12-18T10:35:00.000-08:00

On Holiday

In the spirit of the Holiday Season, I think it is time to acknowledge that The Academy is on holiday, possibly indefinitely. Thank you everyone for listening.

2003-10-31T10:41:00.000-08:00

THE SHOW

In the spirit of Bull Durham, IA is going to The Show. Break a leg!

2003-10-29T18:52:00.000-08:00

Newest Addition to Top 100 Paragraphs List

Oh, come now. Don't you maintain such a list?

Anyway, here's my most recent addition, from an E! Online article describing Siegfried & Roy's history:

The two met aboard a cruise ship in 1959. Roy was a bellboy, traveling with a cheetah he had stolen from a German zoo. Siegfried was a steward, who performed magic tricks for the ship's passengers on the side. A partnership was born.

I smell mini-series.

2003-10-29T12:16:00.000-08:00

Former Federal Judicial Clerk Turned Ebay Addict Seeks Help

Something about the fact that I now must measure out my life in coffee spoons filled with little six minute increments has made the Internet even more seductive. I have become addicted to Ebay. In the last 24 hours I have purchased a bookcase, three laundry hampers, and an oil-on-canvas reproduction of a Rousseau painting.

Then I found this site that collects disturbing auctions, and now I'm addicted to that.

2003-10-28T14:55:00.000-08:00

At Long Last, I am Vindicated

Have you ever known that something was true in your heart of hearts and yet your dearest friends doubted you? Painful, isn't it? Here's a little story about believing in yourself against all odds.

When I was a child, I watched the television program Too Close for Comfort. Didn't we all? Who could resist lovable Ted Knight as grouchy Mr. Rush, and Jim J. Bullock as somehow-not-gay Monroe. A few years ago, I was telling a group of friends about the most bizarre episode of Too Close for Comfort I could remember. It was a "very special" Too Close for Comfort. A very special Too Close for Comfort, in which Monroe was raped. By two women. In a van.

I could not have predicted the scoffs, the gasps, the jokes. I was mocked. Soundly mocked. Certain that this could not have happened, my friends chided me for dreaming up this nonsensical obscenity. Frankly, they began looking at me just a little differently. What is wrong with her, their looks suggested, that would permit her to come up with such a bizarre notion?

As I often do, I turned to the Internet for comfort. Surely some maniac has a Too Close for Comfort website. Surely someone has plucked this gem of a "very special episode" apart and turned in the resulting term paper to their seminar at Brown on gender roles and violence on 80's television. TO NO AVAIL. I had finally stumbled upon something so obscure not even the Internet held any evidence of it.

Or had I? During the ensuing years I began to doubt myself. Had I really seen such a thing? Did I dream it? If so, what in God's name did it mean? Clearly gay man raped by two women in a van at a mall parking lot? And, dear God, was it CHRISTMAS when this happened? Perhaps there was something wrong with me after all...

This self-doubt persisted until Saturday evening.

My dear friend Meg called, sounding shaken, saying "I owe you the most sincere apology."

"What?!?" I replied, excited, "The Dad from ALF really is a crack ho?" (This is yet another of those things of which I'm certain and yet can find no proof.)

"No," she said, taking a deep breath, "Monroe was raped."

The veil was lifted.

It turns out that VH-1, God Bless Em, is running a show called "Super Secret TV Formulas". Episode One focuses on "very special" shows. AND DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE EPISODE I REMEMBERED.... including depicting a shaken Monroe, saying, "No one takes this seriously unless it happens to a woman."

WHAT?!?

But, yes. It happened.

The apologetic phone calls have been coming in fast and furious now. My friend Dave tells me, "This must have been what it was like when they found out the world was round."

2003-10-24T15:06:00.000-07:00

Celebrities Eating!

I have stumbled upon one of the greatest sites ever. Dedicated to pictures of celebrities eating. Here's my current favorite.

2003-10-22T09:14:00.000-07:00

Finally, Something Worthy of a Post. . .

Some kind Bashman reader has found the bandwith to post the infamous sushi memo. Well done!

P.S.: The front page N.Y. Times article on the sushi memo is definitely worth a laugh to anyone struggling under the weight of BigLaw. Enjoy!

2003-10-15T13:52:00.000-07:00

The initial ruling was silly and overwrought, and has implications that go beyond the mere recitation of the pledge. The justices should have no trouble overturning this abomination, quickly and decisively.

Talk about silly and overwrought. The above sentence, from an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal, took me completely by surprise. Newdow was a lot of things. However, it was neither "silly" nor "overwrought." Calling it an "abomination"? That's both.

Dorks.

2003-10-08T10:22:00.000-07:00

While the Rest of the Media is Distracted by Cauliphonia....

The Academy has its eye on the story captivating those who truly care about our nation's future. The Academy and, thank God, Larry King. Tonight, Siegfried joins Larry live to fill us in on Roy's condition.

2003-10-07T09:59:00.000-07:00

Finally, an Update

One of the many problems with letting your blog stand unupdated for so long is that when you finally return, you have so very much to say you might type forever and ever. Perhaps I should begin with my favorite news topic of the past few days: tiger attacks.

Now, I am saddened by the story of Roy's mauling. Don't get me wrong. I wish him a speedy recovery (although that seems unlikely). But, I must admit, part of me is rather pleased for Montecore, the mauling tiger.

Think about it. You're Montecore. You're a white tiger. These German freaks make you live in a casino. Their whole act basically makes fun of you. "Ooooh! Look at the big white tiger! I'm in charge here, Tiger, and don't you forget it!" After seven years of that crap, can you really blame ole Montecore for saying, "Enough of this, Buddy. How's about today, instead of me rolling over or playing dead, I bite you." I can't blame him. I even cheer a little bit for him, for standing up for his tiger self.

That said, the story of Roy and Montecore is by no means the best tiger story out there right now. Hell no. That title goes to the kook who kept a tiger in his Harlem housing project apartment.

Let's examine this, shall we? Antoine Yates somehow acquires a six-week old tiger cub. How the hell did he do that? Who's out there dispensing tiger cubs? He then moves the tiger cub into his Harlem housing project apartment, which also appears to have served as a foster home. Eventually, as you might expect, Antoine becomes nervous around the tiger. So nervous, in fact, the tiger runs everyone out of the apartment. Everyone, that is, except a feisty alligator. But, Antoine moves out, ceding the territory to the tiger. But, don't be concerned. Antoine still cares for the tiger and the gator... stopping by every day to crack the door open and THROW IN SOME CHICKEN. (That's my favorite factoid in this case... tossing in the chicken.) One day, even this finely honed plan goes awry and the tiger manages to shred the guy's leg to bits.

The neighbors knew about the tiger, sure. One even called the NY City Housing Authority to complain about the URINE ON HER WINDOWSILLS but to no avail. (Second favorite factoid: windowsills covered in urine.)

For those at a loss as to how to synthesize these two stories, the NY Times editorial page provides a sort of college essay compare/contrast piece. The bottom line? The Times has taken a bold stance and advises us not to try to keep wild beasts such as tigers as pets. According to the Times, "Tigers have enough trouble as it is."

Yeesh. Get well soon, Roy Horn. And keep them from putting Montecore to sleep. Everybody deserves the odd bad day once in a while.

2003-09-09T19:21:00.000-07:00

Separation from service anxiety

Yup, other former law clerks feel this way.

(Hence the desire some of us feel to run back to the womb and get... what's the opposite of "separated from service"? It sounds vaguely like an operation involving conjoined twins, but I really don't want to be conjoined with the whole federal judiciary. I don't think I could stand the mustiness accompanying some of the circuit judges who are milking every drop out of the "during good Behaviour" part of the Constitution.)

Here's the other thing about the transition from clerking -> private practice: For some, it means much, much more responsibility. For others, it means much, much less. Depends on the judge and the firm, of course.

The parts of returning to government service that I am looking forward to: the ability to call ridiculous arguments ridiculous arguments without worrying about whether they're my client's ridiculous arguments, and to use Westlaw without a client code.

All this clerky stuff is being reinforced in my head because several of the newbies here at The Firm are joining the clerkship melee, approximately one week after entering private practice -- one is interviewing with my former employer tomorrow. I'm amazed that the clerkship hiring cartel seems to have held up fairly well.

2003-09-09T07:54:00.000-07:00

It's good to be temporarily unemployed

I have joined my fellow blogger and the thousands of others who have been "separated from service" with the federal government. I, too, am now *just* a lawyer.

It's funny, when I started law school, my ultimate goal was to become a lawyer. It seemed then that three years of classes and exams (not to mention that one big exam after graduation) were huge obstacles to overcome in order to attain my goal of becoming a lawyer. But sometime during my second year, a clever faculty committee convinced me that there was a goal even loftier than "lawyer" -- there was the goal of "law clerk." So, natch, that became my goal. Now that I have completed law clerking, though, it sure feels like being a lawyer is a step down career-wise.

It used to be that I couldn't wait for the question, "What do you do?" I could barely contain my enthusiasm when I got to say, "I'm a law clerk for a federal judge." Instant approval. Now all I can say is, "I'm a lawyer." There's nothing unique about that. I doubt it will always be met with instant approval. Five years after setting my goal, I'm finally here and I feel vaguely disappointed. Bummer, dude.

I wonder if other former law clerks feel this way about being "separated from service" and thus forced to practice law.

By the way, I can't help but agree with the Parents of Mindy that her adventures sound like the beginning of a B horror movie. It could be titled 'Swimming in Lake Mindy -- Part III -- Body on the Shore.'

I have a little less free time -- or temporary unemployment as I like to call it -- than Mindy. I start work at a big, scary law firm at the end of this month. I'll try to have some adventures, though, so I can entertain my fellow bloggers while they are hard at work!

2003-09-03T11:13:00.000-07:00

Vacation, All I Ever Wanted

Some Academy readers have asked for an update on my vacay. How's it going, the throngs wonder? Why haven't you posted anything about your travels? Be still, masses. Nourish yourself on the following tidbits....

I have been on the road since Friday, the day I left beautiful Portland, Oregon. I'd be desperately sad about leaving such a glorious city, but I'm hell-bent on a return engagement there. One of a more permanent nature. Let's hope so. First, however, I have to get the Citibank vultures off my back. Also, I don't think Robert and I are quite done living in a big ole annoying loud horrible city. At least, that's what I tell myself. So, this move. (Plus, of course, I can't wait to shack up with Robert. Cute little left-wing hysteric that he is. Hi sweetie! *smooch*)

But I have nowhere to be until the middle of October, when I start a really exciting job. One I'm terrified of, by the way, because it seems awfully grown-up. Yikes! So, I'm taking a looooong wandering journey south to Hell Ay, as that gossip-hound Ted Casablanca calls it.

My first stop was the tiny town of Prospect, Oregon. Prospect is approximately half-way between Medford and Crater Lake National Park. I didn't want to leave Oregon without seeing Crater Lake.

You know, I have nothing amusing to say about Crater Lake. Not a thing. Its breathtakingly beautiful. If you haven't seen it: see it. Its not like I'm easily jarred by natural wonders, either. When I first saw the Grand Canyon, I said, "Yup. Pretty much what I thought. Big old hole in the ground." This, however, is a big old hole in the ground created by a volcano and filled with really blue water. Its pretty. Go look at it.

Taking a looong road trip by yourself is fantastic. Its something I've always wanted to so. But, because I was raised like a milk-fed veal, it has taken me 33 years to do it. I always thought I'd have plenty of time and space to think and get to know myself. You know, take a nice long swim in Lake Mindy.

Okay, so I was ready to get out of the lake and dry off for a while by day three. I'm terrific company and all but I was getting a little sick of myself.

I was staying at a terrific hotel in Prospect called, appropriately, the Prospect Hotel. The owners, Mike and Jo Turner, took pity on me and invited me to join them for dinner. We ended up taking a drive in a 1981 Ford van up into the mountains to drink wine and watch the sun go down. I got some beautiful pictures. Email me and I'll send ya one, if you already know what I look like. If you don't know what I look like, I look a lot like this.

That's the kind of thing that happens when you're traveling by yourself. My parents, however, can't get over the fact that everything I'm doing sounds like the beginning of a Sam Raimi movie. Lone blonde woman, traveling in the woods, cell phone goes out, stops at a hotel, gets into van... you know the drill. How could that story end well? But, so far so good. (gulp... knock wood three times)My belongings await me in LA and I'm continuing to wander South. More anecdotes tomorrow, Gentle Readership.

2003-09-03T10:34:00.000-07:00

No FBI Agents Visited Me But...

In all honesty, Willy, if Ashcroft had come by and quizzed me I would not have been surprised. Whew! Bad-mouthing Ashcroft on the Internet feels like taking off a pair of tight jeans.

More on the topic of separation. I will miss the people I worked with and for. I will miss many things about my former employment. But, boy, there are things that I thought I would miss that I just don't miss at all. For instance, the court for which I used to work released a very important and controversial decision yesterday. But, just now, I spent an hour and a half or so eating biscuits with a table of 10-12 chattering people and NO ONE SAID WORD ONE ABOUT IT TO ME. In fact, they might not even KNOW ABOUT IT. Sigh. So far, I do not miss the inside baseball. I know nothing more than anyone else does about this decision and I'm delighted.

Wanna know a secret? I haven't even read it yet. Wanna know something else? I'm NOT GONNA. From now on, I plan to operate like a real grown-up lawyer. In other words, I'm going to read only Howard Bashman's summary but then claim absolute knowledge of all the intricate details of the ninety-page decision. Deeeeee deee deee deee deeeeee..... (brief pause while I skip merrily around the room).

2003-08-29T11:19:00.000-07:00

What's next, an antitrust investigation of law clerk hiring?

Now that Mindy has been "separated" from her federal clerkship, perhaps she is less likely to be interviewed by the feds, as some law clerks on the Supreme Court of Mississippi recently had the pleasure of experiencing.

I shudder to think about how the permanent denizens of the court that formerly employed Mindy would react to a bunch of G-men interviewing their law clerks about how the court's decisions were made.

2003-08-25T10:45:00.000-07:00

Separated from Service

For those of you who don't know, when you leave employment with the federal government you have "separated from service." You don't quit. Your term does not end. You are violently wrenched from the arms of your job and thrown into the pit with the rest of the private masses. That's what it sounds like to me anyway. Separated from service. I've been exiled. Cast out of the garden!

But, anyway, here's the official announcement: I am no longer a federal law clerk. Merciful heavens, thank you Jesus. Now I can blog uncontrollably without fear of reprisals. Blog, blog, blog. I can speak meaningfully about things that matter. I can share my views about anything I care to speak about!!!

So, um.

Whassup?

Huh.

Maybe I'd better start slow. Here's a link to a San Antonio paper. Note to scorned women of Texas: take the bus to surprise your two-timing husbands, please. You'll save yourself a lot of time in jail.

2003-08-23T19:16:00.000-07:00

Well, well. The Perfect Candidate.

Who would have thought that within this giant list one would find the perfect candidate. Look at her platform! I could have written it myself. And although you might think the whole thing is a parody, I assure you it's not. Now if only everyone were so enlightened.

Georgy Russell, you have my vote.

2003-08-18T09:08:00.000-07:00

Darkness

For all you people out in sunny California, I think you need to understand just how dark it was last Thursday night in NYC. After all, I imagine California to be a place where it's never really dark. There's just a brief period of time between when the last lights in L.A. are dimmed and dawn.

It was SO dark (as I walked across the Brooklyn Bridge and on to Park Slope) that I could not see more than a foot or so ahead of me. In fact, I had a repeated disconcerting experience where I thought I was completely alone on the sidewalk only to hear breathing or footsteps immediately in front of or behind me. It was SO dark, in fact, that the Daily News reported that some New Yorkers could see stars on Thursday night. And it wasn't just because they had been bashed over the head by a baseball bat wielding looter.

Actually, I was impressed by the calm, matter-of-fact attitude demonstrated by most people I passed on Thursday night. I only saw a few drunk people, and I couldn't be too critical of them because I believed (and continue to believe) that the only sensible thing to do when you have no power in August is to drink (a lot). I didn't see any looting, but I certainly witnessed some seriously gross monopolistic behavior. Isn't a crime for cab drivers to hike fares in an emergency?

Overall, the Blackout of 2003 wasn't too bad for me. I mean, my fiance had to walk the length of the NYC marathon to get home, but I'm confident that he'll be able to walk down an aisle in a few months. And my feet were feeling ok by the end of Friday (much aided by not going to work and sleeping lots). Of course, sore feet never prevented any woman I know from strapping on some heels and appearing in public to be fussed over.

2003-08-14T11:46:00.000-07:00

This struck me as hilarious - it was emailed today;

From: Someone
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 2:41 PM
To: Everyone
Subject: For Male members of company only

Strange at it may seem, someone is regularly wiping their hands with the paper towels in the men's' room and then, on the way out, throwing them on the floor of the vestibule floor. Inappropriate behavior that should be stopped immediately. Thank you.

My Reactions:

1) a loud belly-laugh!

2) Shouldn't regular handwiping be applauded?

3) Can I send an email around detailing unusual bathroom habits that I have WITNESSED and name names?

2003-08-08T09:09:00.000-07:00

Misleading? Not possible!

In this letter, Attorney General John Ashcroft (see hysterical post immediately below), quotes the Chief Justice as saying:

"It is well settled that not only the definition of what acts shall be criminal, but the prescription of what sentence or range of sentences shall be imposed on those found guilty of such acts, is a legislative function - in the federal system, it is for Congress. Congress has recently indicated rather strongly, by the Feeney Amendment, that it believes there have been too many downward departures from the Sentencing Guidelines. It has taken steps to reduce that number. Such a decision is for Congress, just as the enactment of the Sentencing Guidelines nearly twenty years ago was."

But, let us not forget that the Chief Justice said in the same speech:

"We can all recognize that Congress has a legitimate interest in obtaining information which will assist in the legislative process. But the efforts to obtain information may not threaten judicial independence or the established principle that a judge's judicial acts cannot serve as a basis for his removal from office."

And,

"The new law also provides for the collection of information about sentencing practices employed by federal judges throughout the country. This, too, is a legitimate sphere of congressional inquiry, in aid of its legislative authority. But one portion of the law provides for the collection of such information on an individualized judge-by-judge basis. This, it seems to me, is more troubling. For side-by-side with the broad authority of Congress to legislate and gather information in this area is the principle that federal judges may not be removed from office for their judicial acts. . . . [P] There can also be no doubt that the subject matter of the questions, and whether they target the judicial decisions of individual federal judges, could amount to an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties. We must hope that these inquiries are designed to obtain information in aid of the congressional legislative function, and will not trench upon judicial independence."

Misleading? Well, maybe just a little incomplete.

2003-08-06T22:39:00.000-07:00

F***ing Idiot!

'nuff said.

2003-08-06T19:01:00.000-07:00

California Recall: Strategy

I am excited that I will be able to vote in the recall election (even though it is just plain stupid). Academy founder Mindy will squeak into California residency just in time to qualify for the recall (she tells me she is excited to join the crazy direct-democracy that is California).

The recall strategy is simple. Any self-respecting democrat should vote "No" on the recall. But even if the recall succeeds, the "No votes" can assure a victory. This is because even those who vote "No" on the recall question are still permitted to vote for a replacement candidate in the event the recall succeeds!! All we "Noes" have to do is pick the same replacement candidate - it is a win-win situation.

This is why I do think a democrat should run in the recall. Said democrat should put on an advertising blitz encouraging a "no" vote on the recall AND that all such voters hedge their bets by voting for him/her on the second part of the ballot. It is a very easy and sensible thing to do. I have no doubt that such a strategy would be an almost guaranteed success. Even if the recall is unsuccessful, Davis stays, and Californians would have sent the message that determined, rich "right-wing conspirators" cannot hijack a governorship. This in itself is a good thing. If the recall succeeds, the "no votes" will still be in the 40% range, and such a number, if they all vote for the same replacement candidate, will be more than enough to guarantee a simple plurality to whomever the "Noes" choose, collectively, to vote for. The other candidates will only succeed in fracturing the remaining percentage, none of whom could likely get over 30% of the vote.

So, who is it gonna be? If no strong democrat runs, we are in serious trouble. In that case, I'm throwing my vote over to Larry Flynt. I hope you're listening Larry - lesson of the day: COURT THE NO VOTE!

2003-08-06T12:02:00.000-07:00

More Shopping.

Great Gift For that someone special!

2003-08-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

Query

Excuse me, Academy Blogmasters, but when did this become a home shopping blog?

2003-08-06T10:00:00.000-07:00

Great Indie Music!

This is a shout-out (and shameless plug) for my good friend, Stu Scruggs, who has just recorded a fantastic CD, Unknown Fate.

Stu has been a singer-songwriter since I've known him. His talent and witty lyricism are everpresent on Unknown Fate, and I find that this and this particularly showcase both. Pick this one up, support an artist, and enjoy catchy, humorous music.

Now, back to your regularly (or not so-regularly) scheduled programming.

2003-08-01T12:31:00.000-07:00

Great Gift Idea for Someone You Adore

OK. How awesome is this?

The celebrities listed leave a little to be desired, but how fun!

2003-07-31T08:33:00.000-07:00

Losing the upper hand

Now that Mark has informed me that the President can't be impeached for autographing that flag, I'm moving on to other topics. Of course, I'm having to squint at the screen due to my eye log.

On Tuesday evening, I was walking my dog in the park on her extendable leash. Some people call it a retractable leash. The point to the leash is that your dog can move further away from you than with a normal leash, but you can also prevent that by snapping on a lock to keep the leash short. Goal: flexibility in dog walking. Anyway, there I was contentedly extending and retracting when I realized that two large, fratty-looking men and their similarly large and fratty-looking dogs (with choke collars) were approaching. So, I began retracting to keep my dog closer to me. As the fratty foursome drew even with me, one fratty man commented loudly to the other fratty man, "Man, I f***ing hate those f***ing leashes. They're so f***ing annoying." The fratsters then tugged on their testosterone-jacked canines to keep them moving past my lovable little pooch.

I was taken aback by all that swaggering and swearing. And so I commented to their backs, "Well gosh, that was a polite conversation we just had. Thank you."

As I continued walking home, I felt really good. I had put those men in their places for violating the dog walking etiquette. Moreover, I felt fully justified in criticizing two strangers for swearing in my general direction for no good reason.

But I TOTALLY lost that nice, smug, upper hand last night. I encountered one of the fratsters again. Dumb freakin' luck. [Aside: Why is that in this city of so many millions, you see the same strangers time and again ONLY when you have had a bad encounter with them?] This time, though, he had his menace of a pet firmly chained and my frisky (but totally sweet) mutt kind of lunged toward the fratster's dog, catching me unaware. The neanderthal snorted, sneered and then got the satisfaction of saying to me, "Well, I would have started a polite conversation, but I guess I won't since your dog can't be polite."

DAMN. I had to drink several beers last night to recover from my loss of the upper hand.

2003-07-31T07:44:00.000-07:00

Here's what I have to say about Bushy and his gay speak - toleration, hateration, crunk funk, fag blag, tail wag: "Frippppppsssssssssspppppllllliiiipppppppccccrrrreeeeessshhhhhplip."

EVERYONE raise a stink and email it to your representatives!

This is time for civil disobedience; to let our insides be heard!

2003-07-30T14:00:00.000-07:00

Comments, Please?

Here's what President Bush said today about the gays:

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, many of your supporters believe that homosexuality is immoral. They believe that it's been given too much acceptance in policy terms and culturally. As someone who's spoken out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on homosexuality?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is heading here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.

OK, I have one comment and one question.

Comment: OW!!! I've got a log in my eye!!!!!

Question: What does he mean by "somebody like me"? Does he mean "President"? Does he mean "Christian"? Does he mean, as I suspect he does, "non-freak"? Help. I must know your thoughts. Just now, though, I'm off to the emergency room to get this log removed from my eye.

2003-07-30T11:46:00.000-07:00

Is this as dumb as I think it is?

I mean, don't we all agree that the Framers had themselves some slaves and so originalists around the Dred Scott era had themselves a bit of a hard time getting around that were it not for the 13th and 14th amendments and stuff?

That is not to say that hysterical law professors don't squeal "DRED SCOTT" whenever the court does something they personally feel is dumb. They do. High-pitched hysterical squeals of "DRED SCOTT" or "PLESSY V. FERGUSON" were heard a lot around Bush v. Gore's announcement -- for no good reason, of course, except that the squealers were trying to get people as excited and outraged as they were. So that's bad.

This commentary is really no better than those knee-jerk hysterics that it targets. Its just saying "Dred Scott = BAD originalism, Scalia dissent in Lawrence = GOOD originalism."

Thanks, Dude. Damn illuminating.

And HUZZAH to IA's return.

2003-07-30T09:53:00.000-07:00

Without fanfare -

IA is back. This makes me happy.

2003-07-30T09:05:00.000-07:00

And I was ready to call the authorities!

Then, I saw this in that Federal Flag Code:

"SEC. 8 Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in proclamation."

Darned powers!

2003-07-28T13:10:00.000-07:00

Impeachable offense?

According to the Federal Flag Code, "[t]he flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

Matt Drudge is reporting today that President Bush may have violated this federal law. The President acted in flagrant disgregard of the Federal Flag Code when he autographed a small flag handed to him by a citizen.

Query: Does a violation of the Federal Flag Code qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor?

2003-07-25T16:09:00.000-07:00

My post has nothing to do with evolution or Fundamental(ly-retarded)ists. Instead, it is a rather sweet/disturbing interaction between me and my five year old nephew.

On Wednesday, upon my arrival in Ohio, I was in the backyard trying desperately to get a kite to fly in terribly humid weather -- I mostly just ran around getting kite string wound around my ankles. But, during one of my unwinding the string breaks, my nephew approached me and very tenderly asked: "Why do you have angry voice?" "What?", I exclaimed. "Your voice", he said, "is angry. Are you angry?" "No!", I said force-gleefully. "Well then, you must be sad", he said rather pointedly.

A five year old summed up my entire life in three sentences.

Needless to say, I wound the kite string up, threw the whole fucking mess on the porch and napped until it was time for a "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" rerun.

Kids are horrid and wonderful -- all at once!

2003-07-23T08:54:00.000-07:00

Out of the loop

I don't get it. I linked to the Creation Fair page and immediately thought the whole thing was a parody. I think I thought that because I have had absolutely no exposure to religious talk. So the page immediately seemed silly to me. Do you mean to tell me that there are web sites that are close to that one, but they are SERIOUS?

Well, I guess there is the Pat Robertson site, discussed a few days back on our blog. Case closed.

Gosh, I feel so uninformed. It goes to show that good satire is lost on the uneducated or ill-informed.

2003-07-22T21:01:00.000-07:00

Brilliant, Absolutely Brilliant!

My ego is bruised, but I am a better man for it. Today, at least three highly educated people had a long debate over whether the website, OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries, discussed below re: Creation Science, was real or a parody. This has been a challenge over which I fretted for more than two hours of my highly valuable time (which went unbilled). I am now convinced that this site is a magnificent parody and a sister site of the website it is purpotedly campaigning against: Landover Baptist Church. The Landover site is an obvious parody, and appears to have been created as a precursor to the OBJECTIVE site. Even the Landover site is at times confusing and purports to espouse very convincing "beliefs." But it is obviously fake. Not so with its sister website. It is so convincing, that we have debated it here as though real.

Both of these sites are worth a visit for no other reason than to marvel at the time, effort, and expense that has been poured into these creative endeavors. (After it hit me that BOTH of these sites were parodies, the trip to each's online store became even more humorous -- Check this one out). If The Onion has not yet given the genius jokers who created these sites jobs yet, it should.

Here are the pages that convinced me the OBJECTIVE site is a parody (at first they were hard for me to find, but now it is obvious that everything is made-up):

On this page, detailing the Church's alleged progress against shutting down the Landover site, there are pictures down the right side (scroll down). Two show pictures of a purple and a rainbow colored toy bear, "Al the Anti-Lies Bear." The post of June 8, 2000 is undoubtedly a parody.

This page just can't be real. I won't believe it.

Scroll down to the bottom of any page. The purported "sponsors" link to what appear to be legitimate websites. But the "banner ads" themselves are humorous parodies.

After (finally) noticing these signs, I read everything else on the site with "open eyes" and I am simply amazed. This site tries very, very hard to be legitimate while injecting humor into virtually every corner of the site. I am still most amazed with the stunning parody that is the Creation Fair page. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

P.S. after a short Google search, I discovered that others have debated this topic, and apparently they have even fooled a Christian web-hosting service.

Finally, there appears to be a lot of serious debate about this site that presumes it is legitimate and not a parody. Also, see here, where the author details other suspicious aspects of the site.

2003-07-22T19:45:00.000-07:00

OK, Now I'm Confused

That darn website has got me thinking. I don't surf to think! Darn you, Cursed Website. What am I thinking? I'm thinking -- HOW CAN THAT BE REAL?!? But its so very involved I can't believe its a parody. But then I think -- HOW CAN THAT BE REAL? Andrew Sullivan is similarly flummoxed, so I don't feel so dumb. But.... but.... is it real? Or funny? Comedy or not? Help!!!

2003-07-22T16:50:00.000-07:00

Creationist Science Fair Winners and Honorable Mentions

Recently, Robert and I took a trip to Colorado with my family. During this trip, I did my best to behave myself. I did get in to one raucous argument, though. My cousin explained that she would be home-schooling her child so that she wouldn't learn "dangerous" things. When I asked for an example, my cousin offered, "Evolution."

OK. So I lost it a little. Just because I was so surprised. Afterwards, I was even willing to concede that I might have overreacted. That the proper reaction was polite nodding and staring, instead of the reaction I chose, which was shouting "What?!?! ARE YOU NUTS?!?!?" She explained that she wanted her child to know the Truth. I countered with, "But you heard all about evolution and you turned out okay!" I thought this kind of gave her the benefit of the doubt. She summed up her feelings on the subject by insisting that "We didn't come from monkeys," with a kind of peculiar emphasis on the "We." As if some people might have come from monkeys, but not her.

The thing is, people who say things like that terrify me. I explained this to my parents and sister later when confronted with my inability to let this topic go. Why do they terrify me? Because their inability to see beyond their Fundamentalism also causes them to hate my best friends. And subjugate women. And advocate racial separatism. My parents and sister blew me off, claiming that I was blowing things out of proportion.

TO THAT I NOW SAY THIS. Please, please, please click on this link and peruse the winning projects from this Creationist Science Fair. I may never recover.

2003-07-22T12:25:00.000-07:00

Speaking of Web Postings. Has anyone heard of Tucker Max?

This was brought to my attention by a friend. I am delighted; not so much by the lawsuit (yawn), but by the awesome self-centeredness of the guy and the grammatical mishaps of the gal. I realize the story is a long one, but OH MY GOD!

Have any of you heard of this?

2003-07-21T18:13:00.000-07:00

With Technology Comes Peril II: The Applicants Strike Back

In light of Robert's last posting, I thought it was time for a reminder that sometimes the interviewer, and not the hapless summer associate wannabe, gets tripped up by the all-powerful Internet.

I posted this back in the early days of The Academy, back when we thought we were allowed to talk about law stuff but just didn't feel like it.

2003-07-21T13:52:00.000-07:00

I'm too scared to write about anything serious

Since I now fear that I have violated various canons of ethics by blawging in the past, I am going to stick to blogging for awhile. Ok, at least for today. Or until some really juicy debate pops up here on The Academy!

I recently discovered that men cling to things in a way that I thought only women did. I call it the bachelor security blanket. The bachelor security blanket can come in different forms. This is a tale about one such bachelor security blanket.

PREFACE: This is NOT a story about me. It couldn't possibly be about me because it involves a man and a woman living in sin. I wouldn't do that, you see, because my grandmother doesn't approve of it. So, this is a story about my friend and her fiance.

My friend (I'll call her Jane) and her fiance (I'll call him Dick) recently moved in together. After sleeping on Dick's futon for three weeks, Dick and Jane went out and bought a doozy of a king-size bed. Dick and Jane were absolutely de-lighted when the bed was delivered. For several hours Dick and Jane were so smitten with their new bed that they both forgot about the futon.

But then Jane realized that the futon was still in the bedroom taking up space. So, she said to Dick, "What should we do with that?"

"DO? What do you mean 'DO'?" said Dick, in a slightly raised voice. "I mean, we're obviously going to keep it."

Jane was a bit confused for a moment. You see, they already have: 1) one king-size bed; 2) two sleeper sofas; and 3) one armchair. What they don't have is lots of extra floor space in their New York apartment. They also don't have an attic or a basement in which to store a futon. So, she said, "Do you have any thoughts about WHERE we are going to keep it?"

Now it was Dick's turn to be confused. Which made him a bit angry. "I don't know," he admitted, "but we're keeping it somehow."

That was on Sunday, July 13. The futon remained on the floor of their bedroom unmolested and unmentioned until Saturday, July 19. Jane then commented, as casually as possible, "I'm not saying the futon needs to be removed, but I am wondering, Dick, if you have given any thought to where it may be stored." After the futon mention, Jane ran for cover (to Bed, Bath & Beyond).

When she returned home, the futon was out on the curb. Although she felt vaguely victorious, Jane was not at all smug and didn't even mention the futon to Dick.

The next morning, Dick was very disappointed to discover that no one had taken the futon. Dick and Jane live in the kind of neighborhood in New York where a nice piece of furniture will be grabbed pretty much the minute it is left behind. So it was somewhat unusual that the futon was still sitting on the curb 12 hours after being discarded. Dick was distressed. "Why doesn't anyone want my futon?" he wondered aloud.

A few hours later, Jane was on her way to do some errands when she noticed that a note had been taped to the futon. It read: "Please take this futon. It has a nearly new cover that is in really good shape. This is a great futon. I absolutely would not be getting rid of it except that I just don't have space for it."

Although Jane felt that Dick was sort of advertising their domestic strife to the neighborhood, she didn't say a word. She couldn't help thinking, though, that he may as well have written: "I really want to hold onto the last remnant of my bachelorhood. But, my fiancee won't let me. So, could some other, younger, single guy please please please take this really great futon?"

Dick was thrilled when he discovered that the futon was gone by evening. He was convinced that his note did the trick.

I wonder what items have served as bachelor security blankets for other men. Could The Academy shed some light on this issue?

2003-07-20T12:27:00.000-07:00

With Technology Comes Peril:

I sincerely hope these email fiascos become a summer tradition. Cheers to the rapid distribution power of email and the Internet and those who don't think before hitting "send." By the way, as a side note, there is a good reason why the vast majority of these scandals involve interns and not lawyers. A sure-fire way to avoid these types of things in the future: put all summer associates onto an electronic document production during their first week at the firm. As soon as they see the extent of what is saved for all eternity, they will all be scared to death to send any emails at all.

Here are the gems by way of Life, Law, Libido:

The Skadden summer associate email, (post here);
His subsequent apology email, (post here);
DC Intern's arrogant, post-breakup email, (post here);
Law firm interviewee's follow-up letter, (post here), below the picture.

This New Yorker article is also a don't miss.

2003-07-18T09:05:00.000-07:00

Justice Kennedy Will Be Surprised to Learn He's A Liberal

More from Pat Robertson, clarifying which Justices he was referring to in his call to prayer. Turns out he doesn't know or care.

2003-07-17T10:16:00.000-07:00

The Ethics of Blawgging v. Blogging for Federal Judicial Clerks

I thought I'd weigh in on a subject that has received much html as of late. The Curmudgeonly Clerk has a lengthy post that digests the most recent comments nicely.

Two of the Academy's members are in the waning days of their federal judicial clerkships. As should be clear from many of my previous posts, one of those members undoubtedly is me. In my experience, the Canons in the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees are a baseline but do not define my obligations. I'm pretty sure that, as for all matters concerning one's clerkship, the answer depends 100% on the Judge. Some are going to be content with Canon compliance, but even that presumes that "pre-approval" is required -- so, in terms of the activity itself, if it's okay with His or Her Honor, it's okay with me.

I do think that the essential boundaries of what-may-be-blogged remain undefined. Personally, I started this blog because I thought the emails generated among my circle of friends were funnier than most things and should be shared with the world. At the same time, I fully intended to comply with my Judge's requirements that I refrain from talking out of school about anything court-related. That has turned out to be a trickier proposition than I had originally imagined it would be. Sadly, when you're a judicial clerk, there are many times when there's absolutely nothing going on in your life that isn't court-related. At those times, if I blog, I blog about nothing. I blog to unclog. If I can write for a few minutes about my saucy convertible, it makes it easier to face the white page when I turn to the serious writing that fills my days.

I find it so easy to just chat chat chatter away here in the blogosphere. Sometimes, its that very ease of communicating that has prompted me to self-impose a Blog Ban. I have gone through periods where I'm privy to something sooo juicy and hilarious but not necessarily directly related to the Court. Usually it concerns an Article Three eccentricity that I've encountered that's unrelated to the Judge I work for. I want nothing more than to BLOG BLOG BLOG about the event. So, I blog ban. I blog ban so that I will restrain my own personal Tourette's. I'm afraid that, in the middle of one of my meandering tales about my mother and bath mats, I'll blog about some kinda gossipy inside baseball type thing. *Shudder.*

I realized early on that anonymity is a crock, and code names do not work. Smarties will know where you work and who you're talking about right away. This finally dawned on me during one of my law firm interviews. At the end, the interviewer leaned in confidentially and said, "I love your Blog." This stunned me. But, she put two and two together. It's a small legal world, folks.

So that's my incredibly personal take on the matter. I think it's very challenging to be an ethically secure federal judicial law clerk blogger. I think discussing matters that can reflect on your employment is no good. I think discussing the size of my ass, my saucy convertible, and (to a certain degree) Supreme Court cases is okay. To answer the most important question: do I think it's okay for people to know that I think Pat Robertson is an a-hole? As long as he's not a party to a matter on my desk, Yes.

2003-07-17T09:42:00.000-07:00

So, I'm Guessing There Won't Be Any Complimentary Packages Sent Over to the Supreme Court Soon?

Thanks so much to dear friend and troll Meg for pointing me to this amazing site advertising Pat Robertson's Age-Defying Protein Pancakes. Quite amazing.

2003-07-16T11:22:00.000-07:00

I didn't know God liked America so much!

Gosh, I don't know about all the other stuff Pat was yapping about, but I'm relieved to know that God likes America a lot. Since he doesn't want anything bad to happen to our country maybe he'll see fit to plant the idea in President Bush's head that we should stop attacking other countries for no good reason. Or maybe he'll plant a seed in President Bush's head that he should admit that he lied during the State of the Union Address and resign. Then, we could have a popularly-elected president and God would probably be happier about that.

2003-07-15T10:17:00.000-07:00

Operation 700 Club is Full of Ass Monkeys

Dear Pat Robertson,

A, Get a life.

Second, Following the numbering the first part of of your plea for prayers to end the careers of several Supreme Court Justices (see link posted by Ms Mindse below),

Common sense rejects Numbers 1, 2 and 4 regarding Religion. Read the First Amendment and re-read your Thomas Jefferson who was also quoted as saying: "[T]he clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State. EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (quoting REYNOLDS v. US, supra, 98 U.S. at 164). More specifically, if I understand the facts of the 10 Commandments case, the school's rationale for putting them up IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL was because "the Ten Commandments are religious and they teach moral lessons." That's idiotic. Was the school represented by a pre-schooler -- couldn't they at least have tried to come up with a better secular purpose? "Despite having religious significance, the Ten Commandments are a historical basis for moral traditions which, while subject to debate, are instrumental teaching everyone about socially acceptable behavior." At least, the Court was mean to the bible thumpers and boldly trudged past their silly pretext!

Now then; with respect to Numbers 3 and 5, if we're all so mystified about this 'fake' right of privacy, then why don't we put a camera in your bathroom and watch you poo Pat- I'll bet you spend more time than most wiping your a-hole - whatcha lookin for? A perfect orgasm? Keep digging, you'll find it!

2003-07-15T09:14:00.000-07:00

Pray for the Supreme Court

Pat Robertson has launched Operation Supreme Court Freedom. From what I can glean, we're praying for three or four Justices to free themselves from their judicial obligations.

2003-07-14T11:47:00.000-07:00

Judge John S. Martin, Jr. on The Connection

Follow this link to listen to Judge Martin discuss the Sentencing Guidelines on NPR.

2003-07-11T12:19:00.000-07:00

Senator Patrick Leahy is the Shiznit

I thought I'd reprint the following from the Congressional Record, since its just so great and nobody really knows how to find this stuff on Westlaw.

(From the Congressional Record of July 09, 2003, Senate section - Pages: S9115-6)

JUDGES ACT

Mr. LEAHY. Mr President, earlier this year, the House Republicans saddled the bipartisan, non-controversial AMBER Alert bill with numerous unrelated and ill-conceived provisions, collectively known as the “Feeney amendment,” that effectively overturned the basic structure of the carefully crafted sentencing guideline system. At the time, we were warned by
distinguished jurists that these provisions would irrevocably harm our sentencing system and compromise justice. For example, the Nation's Chief Justice warned that the Feeney amendment, if enacted, “would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' Despite such objections, and without any serious process in the House or Senate, these provisions were pushed through conference with minor changes and enacted.

We are now beginning to witness the far-reaching impact of this folly. Not only have we compromised the sentencing system, but we have alienated and minimized the effectiveness of our Federal judges, prompting at least one to announce early retirement.

As enacted, the Feeney amendment, substantially reversed provisions allowing Federal judges to depart from sentencing guidelines when justice requires. It also created a “black list” of judges who impose sentences that the Justice Department does not like, and limited the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission, thus reducing the influence of practical judicial experience on sentencing decisions.

In response, in a June 24 op-ed in the New York Times, Republican-appointed district judge and former Federal prosecutor, John S. Martin, Jr., decried these provisions as “an assault on judicial independence,” “at odds with the sentencing philosophy that has been a hallmark of the American system of justice,” and tragically, the impetus for his decision to retire from the bench,
rather than exercise his option to continue in a lifetime position with a reduced workload. “When I took my oath of office 13 years ago I never thought I would leave the Federal bench...I no longer want to be part of our unjust criminal justice system.”

It is shameful that we have allowed such half-baked, poorly-crafted legislation to lead to the loss of a judge that has dedicated his career to fighting crime and preserving justice. When he was appointed by the first President Bush in 1990, Judge Martin brought with him to the bench years of knowledge and experience as a Federal prosecutor, including 3 years as a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. As a former Federal prosecutor, he is no slouch on crime. He knows very well the importance of vigorously pursuing and punishing wrong-doers. But his experience has also taught him that these goals cannot trounce the equally-critical pursuit of justice and fairness.

Unless we reverse the damaging provisions in the Feeney amendment, we will continue to compromise justice, alienate Federal judges, and threaten the stability and integrity of our judicial system. That is why I joined Senators Kennedy, Feingold, and Lautenberg in introducing the Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in Sentencing Act of 2003, or the JUDGES
Act. This bill would correct the Feeney amendment's far-reaching provisions by restoring judicial discretion and allowing judges to impose just and responsible sentences. In addition, the JUDGES Act would reverse the provisions limiting the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. Finally, the JUDGES Act would follow through on the advice of
Chief Justice Rehnquist to engage in a “thorough and dispassionate inquiry” on the Federal sentencing structure by directing the Sentencing Commission to conduct a comprehensive study on sentencing departures and report to Congress with 180 days.

In his New York Times op-ed, Judge Martin raised another important point: Limiting judicial discretion and involvement in sentencing practices also reduces the personal satisfaction that judges derive from knowing that they are integrally involved in promoting a more just society, and in doing so removes a powerful incentive that prompts potential judges to accept a judicial
appointment, despite inadequate pay. “When I became a Federal judge, I accepted the fact that I would be paid much less than I could earn in private practice...I believed I would be compensated by the satisfaction of serving the public good--the administration of justice. In recent years, however, this sense has been replaced by the distress I feel at being part of a
sentencing system that is unnecessarily cruel and rigid.”

We all know that judicial pay is a challenging issue. Indeed, this is why I introduced a bill, S. 787, to restore the many cost of living adjustments that Congress has failed to provide the judiciary, and have joined Chairman Hatch and many other members of the Judiciary Committee in sponsoring S. 1023 to increase the annual salaries of Federal judges and justices. I encourage my colleagues to support these efforts. But I ask them not to make the challenge of judicial pay worse by taking away the intangible compensation that is the satisfaction from serving the public good. Unfortunately, the Feeney amendment has done just that.

I again urge my colleagues to support the JUDGES Act, and I ask unanimous consent that Judge Martin's June 24 op-ed be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD
END

2003-07-11T07:53:00.000-07:00

AmUsIng!

This has to be produced in every country in the world - like NOW:

It puts the lotion on its skin.

2003-07-10T14:49:00.000-07:00

Amazed and Intrigued

I am absolutely fascinated by Barnett's essay today in the National Review Online. Ordinarily, for obvious reasons, I skip over the NRO articles linked by our blawgfather, Howard Bashman. Today, however, the title of the essay caught my eye, and boy am I glad I read it. Mr. Barnett, a member of the Cato Institute, is a genius. I could not have said it better myself. (Apparently, Mr. Barnett has "been saying it" for some time now. Check out his books at the bottom of the page.) Ever since Lawrence came down I've been struggling with the lack of reference to "privacy" and "fundamental right" in the opinion. It all makes sense to me now in a very exciting way. In fact, I can't wait for an astute lawyer to pick up on the arguments mentioned in this essay to expand the right to "liberty" expressed in Lawrence as highlighted by Mr. Barnett. It has been obvious that Lawrence is a watershed decision, but if it can be used to expand libertarian ideas in the manner explained by Mr. Barnett, the decision will be truly revolutionary. Exciting times lie ahead.

P.S. Prominent blogger Clayton Cramer strongly disagrees with Mr. Barnett because apparently the right to shoot people, in his mind, does not affect anyone other than the shooter. Not only is this argument flawed for the obvious reason that gun control laws protect those who are shot (and deprived of life and liberty), while sodomy laws infringe upon the liberty of consenting adults to act in a way that affects no one else, but also because it is the Second Amendment, not the Fourteenth that governs gun control. "Liberty" has a precise definition in the libertarian context espoused by Barnett, while reasonable minds can and do differ over the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment, even among libertarians. Perhaps Clayton should consider removing his "Libertarian" self-label from his blog. He seems to have the following maxim reversed: "All Libertarians believe the government should not legislate private consensual behavior, but not all Libertarians believe in the wholesale repeal of all gun control laws." In fact, as a libertarian, I believe one of the few things the government should be doing is keeping assault-rifle-toting-ex-felon-psychpatients from gunning me down on the street.

2003-07-03T08:35:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-07-03T08:24:00.000-07:00

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!

2003-07-02T07:58:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-07-01T14:24:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-07-01T10:55:00.000-07:00

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!

2003-06-26T12:24:00.000-07:00

OH NO JEN DID NOT JUST BLOG THAT

To repeat, Lawrence deals with asses! And, Mindy wins everything!

Those affirmative action cases are big, but you don't think a Supreme Court holding for a right of privacy in the home is a major whammy? This case could do wonders for some Fourth Amendment questions as well!

And, some might say that sex and race are tied in the socially divisive issues arena (depending, of course on where one is located). For instance, Kimberly Crenshaw has written some fairly compelling literature on sexuality and race interplay. I don't know?

I would be willing to admit that the affirmative action case is important - can we call a tie here?

2003-06-26T12:06:00.000-07:00

Not so fast on that hershey highway!

I think the affirmative action cases were bigger than Lawrence. I am measuring "bigness" by impact on the greatest number of people. Also, I think race edges out sexuality on the list of socially divisive issues.

If we measure "bigness" by dollars, however, I suppose State Farm was the biggest ruling of the term.

2003-06-26T11:05:00.000-07:00

DISCUSSION

I believe Mindy wins.

1) This case overturned a previous Supreme Court decision;

2) This case involved asses; and

3) This case turns what was once a lonely hershey highway into a huge, hot-buttered threegie interstate (so long as the driving stays well within the privacy of a home).

Actually, I believe Mindy wins because I think she wins everything!

2003-06-26T10:57:00.000-07:00

Hooray!

I just had a fight with my colleagues. I think I won. The premise was:

Resolved: Lawrence was the biggest case of the term.

Discuss.

2003-06-26T07:55:00.000-07:00

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime..." J. Kennedy, Lawrence.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda..." J. Scalia, dissenting in Lawrence.

Hooray for this case and hooray for a 6-3.

Let the riots begin!

2003-06-24T10:39:00.000-07:00

Judge John S. Martin, Jr.

I call Judge Martin "my district judge." I call him that not only because I had the privilege of interning with him during my third year of law school. I also call him that because, through my friendship with one of his daughters, I knew him for several years before I even thought about becoming a lawyer. Without his guidance, I would never have been able to negotiate my way through the twists and turns of applying for the "right" clerkships, getting on the "right" law review, and working for the "right" law firm. Therefore, I owe him my entire career, as he jokingly reminds me.

When I interned with Judge Martin, he wanted me to be sure to spend Fridays in chambers. Fridays were the designated days for sentencing hearings. The former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Judge Martin believed that sentencing was one of the most, if not the most, important part of his job. Watching him preside over those hearings has given the phrase "judicial discretion" a palpable meaning. The Judge is fair, thoughtful, and thorough -- the epitome of what I would want if I were either the prosecutor or the defendant in a federal criminal case.

If he really retires (I just can't stand the thought yet), then we've lost a great judge. I hope that Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Feingold, Lautenberg and Representative Conyers are aware of the Judge's piece and can use it to persuade Congress to pass the JUDGES Act, which is aimed at repealing the portions of the PROTECT Act that further constrain judicial discretion in sentencing.

I'm talking about the Judge as if he's dead, which of course he is not. I'm talking in terms of loss because that's what I'm feeling, I guess. A tremendous sense of loss for the system -- prosecutors and defendants alike.

2003-06-24T06:53:00.000-07:00

Goodbye, Judge Martin

I just read this op-ed in the NY Times by Judge John S. Martin.

It seems he is leaving the bench. Resigning. Hanging up the robe. Why? Because Congress is BAD. This is terrible.

2003-06-23T15:28:00.000-07:00

Library Porn

I'm upset about the library porn filter decision. I mean, I love porn, not to mention porn filters. I installed mine at home as soon as an effective one became available. Unless you have a porn filter to immediately filter out the non-porn, how are you to find any porn on the internet at all? Otherwise you're just deluged with those pop-up ads for informative news articles, helpful household hints, and low-fat recipes. How many times have I searched the Internet in vain for just a smidgen of porn?!? Not with my porn filter. No more Salon. No more Slate. No more How Appealing. Now, its just porn, porn, porn. But, I have to say.... installing porn filters in libraries? That seems an odd choice. What if a child wants to do a book report on My Friend Flicka or research sea anemones or something?

Oh. Sorry. I just read the decision. I get it now.

All right. Now I'm really mad. This subjects librarians to an added layer of harassment. Isn't it already bad enough that they're subjected to the confining stereotype of the prim old lady who crochets cats and has a dozen Afghan hounds? Or maybe crochets afghans and has a dozen cats? Whatever. They're prim. They're old. They're librarians. And now they're forever a part of your library porn experience.

How, I ask you, will young men without home computers access PCBootyCall.com now to download GirlFriend 4.0, their own girlfriend management software? Sometimes this Supreme Court just burns me up.

2003-06-23T12:17:00.000-07:00

THE WORLD IS ENDING... or JUST BEGINNING?

George Bush, Sr. is co-starring in the tour of a LIVE STAGE MUSICAL SHOW!

Maybe this is some hint at how Lawrence is going to be decided?

2003-06-23T10:40:00.001-07:00

Robert gets 100%. Being even half right about a Supreme Court opinion should count for 100% on this blog!

Now then, as a former public library employee (from high school through college), I was trying to think what my reaction would be if someone asked me to unlock the filtering software so they could look at something that was being filtered. If it involved getting off my butt, the answer would be "It is broken". If it was for someone attractive, "Of course - can I watch?". If for someone disgusting, "No. Absolutely not - you're unruly and must leave this place at once."

I don't trust librarians - I spent my formative years around them and I gotta tell you - they like little more than making fun of patrons and flipping through Publishers Weekly searching for the new Jackie Collins novel in large print type, for the "older" patrons.

This is odd law, Supreme Court! Shame on you! The fear of mockery will prevent taxpayers from looking at blocked websites! This builds a stupid America. PORN FOR ALL!

2003-06-23T10:40:00.000-07:00

2 for 4?

I think (hope) that you accurately predicted Nike and Lawrence. At this rate, we may know by the end of the day!

2003-06-23T09:56:00.000-07:00

Could I have been more wrong?

Doh! I'm happy about the Court's affirmative action opinions, but, damn, I got the Library Porn case exactly wrong. I thought I had that one nailed. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to ask the librarians to remove the filters everytime I log-on at a public library (which has never happened yet, but who knows). I suppose it will be just as embarrassing as buying condoms or something. Please let me be right about Lawrence, Please!!

2003-06-23T07:56:00.000-07:00

0 for 4 so far

Kind of an auspicious start, Robert! I thought your predicion re: Grutter was dead on. But, I just read that the Court has upheld the "critical mass" system used by the U. of Michigan by a vote of 5-4. Then again, they found the undergraduate admission policy in which "underrepresented minorites" were awared 20 points without any individualized assessment to be UNconstitutional. So, I guess we now know (kinda) where the line is drawn with respect to admission policies.

I'm going to try to read the 95 page Grutter opinion and the 68-page Gratz opinion. I'll get back to y'all in a few days!

But for now - I have this important question. Robert got it about half right in his U. Michigan prediction. Should we count that as an accurate or inaccurate prediction? I leave it to the Vegas-wise Academy members to figure that one out.

2003-06-22T16:01:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court Predictions

In the grand tradition of The Academy, I have set out to predict the results of the most contentious of the still pending 10 Supreme Court cases, which are likely to be decided this week. I have no particular expertise for offering these predictions, I am doing it only to see whether I am right. The fact that I am employed by one of the nation's largest law firms should probably count against me. You have been warned. So, here is what is going to happen this week:

In Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, since I am a gambling man, I make the following bold prediction. The Court will overrule Bakke's central premise (if you can call it that) that diversity is a compelling state interest, thereby effectively declaring affirmative action unconstitutional. The Court will be split 5-4, and we may get a completely fractured court with many opinions and no clear result just like in '78. However, affirmative action will not be dead. There will be language in the opinions suggesting that, although diversity cannot be considered a compelling state interest to overcome strict scrutiny review of the policies challenged in these cases, there are other "options" available that would effectively maintain the "proper" racial balance in colleges and graduate schools. Race, per se, cannot be used because of the 14th Amendment's clear position on the subject, but that will not stop institutions from using other proxies that mirror race consideration, i.e., geographic location of the applicant, location of the high school, household income, and consideration of "essays" describing how the applicant has overcome "adversity." The result: status quo, but with the added benefit that the affected institutions now have a safe harbor against litigation.

In Lawrence v. Texas, I have to go with the word on the street. The Texas gay-only sodomy statute will be ruled unconstitutional (good-riddance) on equal protection grounds. The line-up will be 6-3 or 7-2 with Scalia and Thomas definitely in the dissent. Although the Court should declare a right of privacy for virtually anything that goes on between consenting adults in their own homes, it certainly won't go that far (maybe in a few years when people really start getting sick of all this government intrusion into our private lives). I guess we should be lobbying for a privacy constitutional amendment to legitimize the admittedly shaky constitutional grounds for the Court's privacy decisions of the past 4 decades. The Chief Justice will write the opinion, if he's in the majority. Here is one unusual prediction: I believe that although Scalia will dissent, his opinion will be suspiciously void of the obvious rancor and animus that permeated throughout his last opinions on homosexual issues. He will dissent only on the grounds that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification and, just as is almost always the case, the government wins on rational basis, i.e., there is some rational basis for discriminating against homosexual sodomy and not heterosexual sodomy for whatever reason he (and the government) can invent. Absent will be the historical damnation of everything gay. Scalia: welcome to the 21st century, now stay out of our bedrooms.

In United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., the case pitting the moral majority against common sense and the First Amendment, the Court will rule that the Federal Government cannot force libraries to install Internet filters on their computers. Anyone who has ever come in contact with such filters knows that they are extremely overbroad AND underinclusive, i.e., largely useless. And even if they worked, the Court will not allow such an obvious infringement of the First Amendment. Libraries have staff that can and do walk around and monitor what people are doing on the computers -- they listen to patron's complaints. Libraries will and still will be able to police their own halls with discretion. The Court may even be unanimous on this one. If I am wrong, and I hope I am not, God save our country from whatever Ashcroft (and Congress, in this case) can get away with next. First Amendment? What First Amendment?

In Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, the other First Amendment case, in keeping with the theme, the Court will find that Nike's ads are (and were) protected speech -- lawsuit dismissed. I don't think the Court will abandon the commercial speech doctrine, instead, I believe the Court will recognize the speech at issue in this case for what it is -- political speech protected by the core of the First Amendment. This is not the classic False Advertising case, and this lawsuit should suffer a quick death.

That's it. I don't particularly care about the remaining cases, so if I missed yours, go find some other predictions. I look forward to many amusing comments, before and after these cases are handed down. No matter what, this promises to be a fun week for Court watchers!

P.S. They're all sticking it out. No retirements. I think the Court got the message that retiring now would actually support the conspiracy theorists' claims that the Court installed the current president. Any sane Justice would wait until Bush is legitimately re-elected before allowing the installed to appoint the successors to the installers.

2003-06-22T11:37:00.000-07:00

Blog Sweet Blog

Oh, Bloggie. How have I missed ye? I know I have been away for quite some time. I have no excuses. Well, I do have excuses. But rather than dwell on the past, let's move on to the future, shall we? By detailing what I have been doing .... in the recent past.

My federal employment is coming to a close, so I'm frantically trying to tie up loose ends and working like a dog in the process. But I started off this Farewell Tour with a last trip to the glorious city of San Francisco, where I ate too much, got my hair cut, and bought shoes.

I then tripped away for a weekend rendezvous in glorious Las Vegas with fellow Academy member Robert and my dashing young colleague Ben. We met up there with another institutional colleague who had just a week or so before been discharged from service with one of the most legendary workaholics amongst us. (And, may I say, one of the most charming... as long as you limit your contact to social engagements.) It had been so long since this young recently-expelled clerk had seen the outdoors in the middle of the day, he looked like one of those fish that live in caves that have evolved into blind albino freak-creatures. But, after a nice four days or so lolling by the pool at the Palms, he appeared to have some of his (I'm told) original bounce back. Welcome back to the living, Young Man, say I!

Have I spoken to this blog about how much I love Las Vegas? I couldn't possibly love Las Vegas more. But, I have decided that my official limit is four days. Four days is just about perfect for someone with my income and attention span. I was there from Thursday afternoon through Monday morning. Joy, rapture.

I think the highlight had to be my pilgrimage to Cheetah's, the strip club featured in one of my favorite films -- Showgirls. I felt more of a thrill witnessing in person Nomi's familiar dancing pole and the red vinyl couches in the VIP room where she gave Zach a Crystal-funded lapdance than I did when I visited Graceland. But, I also learned much about myself. Namely, I am not cut out for visiting strip clubs with my man in tow. Strippers leapt repeatedly into Robert's lap. Almost without thinking, I shooed them away like flies. "Get away from him! What is the matter with you?!?" The nerve! After the first couple of shoo's... I realized I had taken Robert to Ben & Jerry's only to be appalled when they offered him ice cream. Duh. I'm an idiot.

The low point? Perhaps it was a rather patronizing speech I endured which was delivered by a leggy blonde wearing only a g-string and a cowboy hat, "You know, it takes an open minded woman to bring her man here. But it takes a truly open minded woman to have fun with her man here." Oh. I see. Excuse me, Tex. Let me wrestle with that zen koan for a few, okay? But in the meantime GET THE HELL OUT OF MY BOYFRIEND'S LAP.

Eventually we found a tiny stripper dressed like a schoolgirl named Abby. She talked a lot about watching the Game Show network and she asked us if Mike Tyson had a mechanical hand. She was insane, but I liked her. So I let her sit on Robert to keep the other strippers at bay.

So, there's your slapping match, Mark.... hope you enjoyed it! Robert and I will be keeping our strip-club jaunts to a minimum from here on out. Or, at least, we'll go in groups of others of our own genders.

More later, Kiddos.... Boy did I miss y'all!

2003-06-18T09:47:00.000-07:00

I love a good slapping match! Anyone wanna rumble?

2003-06-04T09:14:00.000-07:00

I'm fifty cents poorer

Following the port-a-potty debacle and various other contratemps leading up to my brother's wedding, my mother and I placed a little side bet. I put fifty cents on Wedding #2 going the way of Wedding #1 -- no marriage. My mom took that action. She pointed out, though, that she would march my brother to the altar with a shotgun if necessary.

I lost the bet. I guess I should say that I'm pleased to have lost the bet. I should say that . . . but it's hard to stop acting like a little sister after all these years, and I just can't help thinking that this marriage wasn't such a great deal for the bride.

But anyway, Wedding #2 ended in a marriage. And a lot of mud. It rained all day and all night. Thankfully, the port-a-potties didn't sink.

2003-06-04T06:37:00.000-07:00

So, Jen, is the epilogue to the wedding story as funny as the prologue?

2003-05-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

I demand an explanation for this. Have awesome weekends - I want full reports, thoughts and comments by midweek next week.

2003-05-30T07:00:00.000-07:00

Making up for lost time

I am distressed that Mindy's mom thinks our little blog looks "funny." In an effort to keep Mindy's mom happy, I am going to publish TWO posts today.

My brother was going to get married last December in Chile, but at the last minute, he and his Chilean bride got cold feet. Their feet were pretty warm right up until lots of relatives had flown to Chile and checked into their hotels. My father was among those relatives who arrived in Chile in time to receive the news that the wedding was called off. He wasn't pleased.

But don't be sad because the story for my brother and his Chilean bride does not end there. They cuddled up to some sort of space heater and warmed their footsies again. They are getting married tomorrow. Hooray!

Here's where the humor sets in. This wedding will be in my parents' backyard. That's right. The same father who was displeased in Chile is now hosting Wedding #2 in his very own, carefully mown backyard. He rented a tent and everything. I think my parents figure that by having the wedding on their own land, there is a better chance of a marriage actually occurring. We'll see about that.

Because my brother and his bride were somewhat chagrined by the cancellation of Wedding #1, they said they wanted to have a very small Wedding #2. Oh, you know, 20 people or so. Just family. Real small. We could throw some meat on the grill and get a keg. That was two months ago. At last count, my parents are expecting 45 guests. My mother has had to call the equipment rental company about 5 times to add tables and chairs. Oh, and to request a bigger tent.

As the guest list expanded in the past few weeks, my mother grew concerned about the strain this would put on the ONE toilet in their house. I think her concern was rational. Their house is about 250 years old and the plumbing ain't a whole lot newer. So a 45 to 1 person to toilet ratio did sound pretty bad. My mother wisely called Al, the local port-a-potty specialist, and he concurred in her judgment that some extra potties were needed.

Now, while my mother has been making arrangements of the port-a-potty sort for the past few weeks, my father has been busily grooming lawns and shrubs and trees and flowers and such. They have divided their chores along inside-outside lines. The inside-outside chore distinction was blurred, however, on Wednesday.

Good ole Al, the port-a-potty man, arrived to deliver the potties as scheduled. He and my mother hadn't really factored in several weeks of rain and the huge weight of his delivery truck. So, when Al arrived and looked DOWN the hill that precedes by parents' backyard, he was a little nervous. But the mighty and fearless Al just barreled on DOWN the hill into the backyard and unloaded the two potties. And then Al looked back UP the hill. "Don't worry," he said to my mother, "I'll get this here truck outa here, no problem!" He was partly correct. He got the truck out of the yard eventually. But he left an enormous mess behind -- huge ruts in the lawn, mud strewn everywhere, carefully seeded and mown lawn torn to shreds.

My mother stood in the rain (which, according to the latest forecast, will continue through the weekend) and called my father, a/k/a Lawnmower Man. He was displeased about the the cancellation of Wedding #1 in Chile. But he was REALLY displeased about the rape of his lawn by the Port-a-Potty Man.

Wedding #2 has started to feel a lot like 'Meet the Parents.' Come to think of it, my brother does have some Ben Stiller-ian qualities . . .

2003-05-30T06:37:00.000-07:00

Those were the days . . .

I enjoyed Robert's stroll down memory lane back to the Summer of 2000. Man, that was good. He sure did capture the flavor of being a summer associate back in the day. Except for the part about actually getting an assignment. That really wasn't part of my experience. Or maybe they did give me "work" to do, but I was too hungover to recognize that it was meant to be an "assignment." I did find that making up things for my timesheet was an arduous task. Does that count as an "assignment"?

It took a little time for me to adopt the entitlement 'tude that summer. I went in thinking that I should make every effort to "get some experience" and "see what firm life is like." Heck, I probably even wanted to learn something. I abandoned all of those crazy notions by the end of the first cocktail party. After that, I was basically a fattened calf for the rest of the summer. I just kept following the herd to the next feeding. At some point, though, the boredom set in, and I began to expect more . . . and more . . . And that is how I joined the Class of Entitlement from the Summer of 2000.

So, just to be clear. Y'all are saying that being an actual lawyer at the firm is NOT going to be like that? You're sure about that?

2003-05-29T08:44:00.000-07:00

I am deeply ashamed. Do you mean to tell me that Mindy's mother reads this? I am going to stop using dirty words AND not be so explicit about sodomy. Of course, Mindy did share with her family a certain birthday video which featured a rather foul-mouthed, slightly psychotic manly female friend of mine, so maybe I shouldn't feel so insecure.

2003-05-28T10:31:00.000-07:00

Your Blog Looks Funny

Its kind of a sad comment when your mother sends you an email complaining about your failure to post to your blog recently. She also announced that it "looks funny." I don't think it looks funnier than usual, though, so I'm going to ignore her.

Ah, to be a summer associate again! What would I do differently? Well, for one, if I had had any idea that three years later I still would not be rid of the 16 pounds I gained on four star lunches I might have.....who am I kidding? I would've stuffed myself at Jean Georges and Le Bernardin just the same.

I recently had to confront my failure to do anything of consequence in the summer of 2000. The law firm that I'm going to work for in August was conducting a thorough reference check. During one awkward telephone call with a partner, I was asked for the names of partners at my summer firm for whom I did substantive legal writing. What to say? "Um, can I count a lengthy email comparing the valrhona chocolate cake at various local eateries with my childhood memories of the slightly undercooked brownie in Hungry Man tv-dinners? It was kinda Proustian, if that matters....." OK, I didn't say that. What I did say was: "Do you remember the summer of 2000? It was quite a summer." After a pause, he said, "So there aren't any partners for whom you did substantive legal writing? How about associates?" Awkward silence. Quite a summer, indeed.

My recommendation to Robert and my other associate friends who are entertaining the youngun's this season: opt for sushi. Its hard to do too much damage to your body with raw fish and rice.

2003-05-23T16:14:00.000-07:00

Summer Associates: The True Gauge of the Economy

The summer associates have arrived. Summer has obviously begun. When my fellow Academy colleagues were summers in the summer of 2000 (the last "summer of plenty"), they used to play a game they called, "what's going to happen next?" Will it be another 3 hour lunch at Le Cirque? Is it time to get drunk at 4 p.m.? Who is going to try impress me with their [insert location of posh penthouse, house in the Hamptons, amazing sports or concert tickets, etc.]? What crazy enternaining event will we be invited to next? What, I have an assignment?

According to the actual lawyers who lived through the summer of 2000, those summer associates were infused with the most annoying sense of entitlement the law firm world had ever known. There was scandal, and intrigue, and attempts to one-up each other in the "how much money can I get the firm to spend on me" department. My what 3 years can do. I submit that whether the lawyers are doing the groveling or whether the law students are the ones begging for a job is the true measure of the economy. Today, the economy sucks like never before. I know this because this year's summers are not beginning their day at 10 a.m. by planning where to go to lunch and who is going to take them. They actually appear grateful to be here. They are surprised when we spend money on them - even showing some sense of guilt. Several have turned down the opportunity to go out for coffee because they were waiting for a phone call from the summer assignment coordinator. The last two nights, I actually left work before some of the summer associates. They are actually doing work. Amazing.

I suppose the law firms are happy with this development. However, I'd trade these nice, grateful, hardworking people for the assholes of the summer of 2000 in a heartbeat if it meant my brother could actually get a job out of law school. Back to the years of ungrateful bastards and scandal!! C'mon, economy, let's get to it.

2003-05-17T12:41:00.000-07:00

Poker in L.A.

Here is a very good article about Poker in Los Angeles and attaining the American Dream.... A very good read.

2003-05-16T13:20:00.000-07:00

Anti-Circumvent This!

I am so tired of reading about the Digital Milennium Copyright Act and all this anti-circumvention suing! Now this came to my attention. I have sympathy and patience, to a degree, for copyright proprietors, but I gotta say - LET THE PEOPLE CIRCUMVENT! My favorite part of the linked article is where the attorney for the copyright owners says: "Fair Use has never been a constitutional right". Oh, lick my balls - it is a child of the Constitution, and it is part of a federal statute (and in pretty plain english). And, the argument isn't that "fair use" is a constitutional right (oh, except for that pesky 1st Amendment instruction that Congress must not have meant to trod upon when cooking up that sloppy Copyright Act!). The argument, if I understand it correctly, is that "fair use" is granted by the Copyright Act and then effectively castrated by the DMCA. I would have made that attorney write an essay on lame arguments!

Now, riddle me this guardians of the copyright gate. Do we really believe that most people buying new dvds or cds, are circumventing and making 40,000,000 copies of whichever and selling it to complete strangers? People are far too lazy for such widespread nonsense. I have a itch in my fat ass that tells me that substantial, non-infringing use is about all most people who have the money and room to buy such devices have on their minds. Think photocopiers and VCR's and keep those Napster and Corley images out of your head, and if someone is on a rampage selling loads of protected garbage - throw the book at them. Leave the manufacturers alone and someone burn me an illegal copy of the new Matrix movie!

2003-05-14T10:10:00.000-07:00

J-Lo must be stopped - she's a bad ass influence.

2003-05-13T11:24:00.000-07:00

Willy Explains...

that there's some history of this sort of thing in Texas. He referred me to this link for more info. When asked about the dem's holed up in Oklahoma, my ultra-Republican father announced, through snorts of laughter, "The only way this could get better is if it turns into another Waco."

Another lovable right-winger who is a friend to the Academy proclaims that the time is ripe for regime change in Oklahoma. After all, the Okies are harboring the "Texas dems who are themselves Weapons of Mass Obstruction."

It gives me great pleasure to air all sides of this public debate.

2003-05-13T10:11:00.000-07:00

And When They Came For the Democrats....

Finally, they've found something for those Texas Rangers to do in the lull between prison breaks. House Republicans have dispatched the Rangers to go get the Democrats, who walked out and, remarkably, are now holed up in a motel in Oklahoma so as to escape Rangers jurisdiction.

Now, when I left Texas, I had a sneaking suspicion this kind of thing might happen someday. I thought the Rangers would come for me due to my utter failure to apply enough hair spray to increase my hair mass, my inability to walk in espadrilles, and the depletion of my hosiery stocks. Did I speak up? No, I fled. Now, the Rangers come for the Democrats. Who will speak for them?

I'm troubled by the international incident that is brewing. Will the Rangers invade Oklahoma? What other recourse do they have if Oklahoma insists on giving comfort and aid to the Democrats????

2003-05-12T11:49:00.000-07:00

Blairgate at the Times

Could I be more fascinated with the way this story is unfolding? Is it because my passion for all things meta is undying? Could be. That's why I found this article in the Sunday New York Times reporting about the reporting in the New York Times so riveting. Also fascinating is this commentary on that reporting in Slate, and this column by William Safire about the whole mess.

Jayson Blair, you're something else. I have to say, though, I'm really glad I wasn't doing anything important when I was 27. Luckily, I was only responsible for making sure celebrity athletes got enough cold cuts at their commercial shoots. I don't think I was as much of a mess as this kid, but at least I was not in a position to do this kind of damage. Has anyone else noticed that we simultaneously extend adolescence into the late-twenties while looking to younger and younger people to define the dialogue of the day? I had a friend who used to call these twenty-somethings the YMD's -- Young Media Dreadfuls. Jayson Blair looks to me like the personification of that nickname.

I'm distressed because until now, I thought YMDs were confined to fluff publications (see Bob Ickes), record companies, pr firms (see Lizzie Grubman), and talent agencies. That's where they all were when I walked amongst them, at least that's what I thought.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Jayson Blair is too young to be responsible for his actions. Oh, he's responsible. The kind of things he did, though, are just the kind of things that high school kids do. Cheating, cutting corners, daring authority figures to catch him. What did he have to gain from all of this? Career advancement? I guess. But it sounds more like he just didn't like to travel very much and preferred to stick around Park Slope, Brooklyn.

Maybe another reason it just seems adolescent to me is that it shows a lack of reverence, a lack of respect, for what journalism is supposed to be all about. It reveals a kind of cynicism that you see in faux-jaded teens when they are explaining why they don't care about voting: Its all lies anyway, so who cares. Grrrr.

2003-05-11T13:11:00.000-07:00

Today's Tip: Do Not Threaten the Federal District Judge Who Is Sentencing Your Husband

This link describes what happens if you disregard that awfully good advice. I'm grew up in San Antonio. I can tell you that's a place where they take the threatening of federal judges pretty darn serious-like. What with Woody Harrelson's father killing Judge John H. Wood in the Judge's own driveway and all. If you ask me, Mrs. Wade got off easy -- sexist comments are icky, but withstanding a few is still lighter punishment than federal prison.

2003-05-10T13:04:00.000-07:00

Further evidence of how cosmopolitan, multicultural, and insane my former temporary home of Portland is.

2003-05-09T16:12:00.000-07:00

Joyce DeWitt Surfaces!

For those of you who have wondered, as I have, what became of Joyce DeWitt? Here's an article proving that our worst fears are realized: she's out of her freakin' mind.

2003-05-09T13:27:00.000-07:00

"Britain Monkey Authors"

That is the chosen URL moniker for this hilarious story, which is a new take on the old theory that if given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, those monkeys would eventually duplicate a Shakespeare play. Apparently, putting theory into practice did not turn out quite as planned.

2003-05-08T09:32:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are glimpsing the virtues of privacy in Bennett's case.

The following is from the LA Times by way of How Appealing. I love this article (and the underlying story). I was searching for a good way to out the hypocrisy (and cast a vote for libertarians), here it is:

By Norah Vincent, Norah Vincent is a columnist in Yardley, Pa.

Isn't it curious how quickly a conservative becomes a libertarian when he's caught sinning? There's a lesson in that somewhere, if only the Christian right could bring itself to learn it.

Maybe it will, now that its paragon of virtue, William Bennett, has been exposed as an inveterate high-stakes gambler. They're already piping in with a textbook privacy defense. National Review's Jonah Goldberg carped, "The only conceivable victims here are the Bennett family, and a little bird tells me that they'll do just fine." Bennett himself growled: "I don't play the 'milk money.' I don't put my family at risk."

In other words, I'm not harming anyone, so leave me alone. A fair argument if you're a libertarian, for whom harmless acts are defensibly private. Libertarians believe that the government should stay out of private lives on issues that don't have a bearing on society as a whole.

The problem is that Bennett and Goldberg are not libertarians. They're hellfire conservatives, and hellfire conservatives tend not to believe that a generalized right to privacy exists in the Constitution, much less that harmless acts are protected by it. For far-right conservatives to defend Bennett's gambling in libertarian terms as a "harmless act" — one that doesn't starve the wife and kids — is disingenuous to say the least because it sidesteps the most important criterion by which such a conservative defines harm. That is, of course, sin.

Before the far right can talk about whether something is harmful, it must first establish whether it is sinful because, for these conservatives, all sinful acts are by definition harmful, not just to the sinner or his intimates but to society at large.

This is the justification for upholding sodomy laws. Gay sex, though it may be harmless by libertarian standards, by conservative standards is a sin. Thus, by definition it harms society and the family and should not be a protected private act.

So conservatives shouldn't be arguing that gambling is harmless but rather that gambling isn't a sin. But, arguably, it is a sin, and a deadly one at that. In fact, it's hard to imagine a better example of greed — one of the seven deadly sins — than the world of high-stakes gambling.

Gambling is the very embodiment of greed. Greed is its raison d'être. There can be no doubt where the Christian right stands on the issue. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson has written, "We must reject the fantasy that wagering is innocuous entertainment and deal earnestly with the destruction and pain that it causes to individuals, families and society." And Ralph Reed has pronounced gambling a "cancer on the body politic, destroying families, stealing food from the mouths of children, turning wives into widows."

So if gambling is a sin, harmful to society and the family, then according to conservative logic, whether it is privately undertaken is irrelevant. It should be as illegal as sodomy still is in more than a dozen states. In all fairness, then, shouldn't poker night at Bill Bennett's be just as prosecutable as a quiet tryst at Big Gay Al's? You would think. But, as this incident clearly shows, the far right doesn't see it this way.

They persist in selectively applying their standard of sin to the law, attempting to criminalize only certain sins; other people's sins; sins that push their buttons; sins like sodomy and pot smoking that — as any member of Gamblers Anonymous will tell you — do far, far less damage to society or the family than gambling.

Which is why the lesson in all this is not simply that the Christian right is full of hypocrites who pick and choose which sins to de-privatize and prosecute. It's also — as Bennett has just learned — that the libertarian harm principle is a far more consistent and equitable standard for criminalizing private acts than the selectively enforced Christian "sin principle." Because in a world full of sinners, if you make sinning criminal, sooner or later we'll all end up in the dock.

2003-05-07T13:44:00.000-07:00

OH REALLY?

Texas has a strange dichotomy going on over who can do what to asses. These crack-ass searches could be defined as sodomy utilizing one of the various defintions of sodomy!

That said, I wonder - could there ever be "reasonable cause" to stick genitals into a-hole of same sex partner?

What about a "necessity" defense? "But, he told me he would absolutely die if I didn't stick it in him.", or how about invoking some good old "Frustration of Purpose"? "I was only going to have sex with people of the opposite sex, but I'm GAY."

I'm not recognizing Texas as a state anymore because they let their law enforcement finger people on the job!

2003-05-07T09:30:00.000-07:00

Sad day, no more IA

Sadly, the blogging universe felt a rift in its collective force when the anonymous (until yesterday), witty, humorous, NY "biglaw" Incompetent Attorney posted his final entry on his blog, Attorneys Suck. I was a loyal reader, sometimes checking his site a half a dozen times or more in a day to see if a new entry had been posted. You will, IA, surely be missed. We at The Academy, for what it's worth, wish you the best of luck tackling the tedious and daunting task of life as a law firm associate. Your positive outlook on life was a boost to all of us similarly situated cogs in the great law firm machines. We all hope to read your unique brand of humor in whatever incarnation you decide to take it. Best of luck,

The Academy.

2003-05-06T07:50:00.000-07:00

20 Questions For Howard Bashman

Today, May 6, marks the first anniversary of How Appealing. To wish Mr. Bashman a Happy Blawg Birthday, we are posting the following -- our own 20 Questions that Howard was kind enough to take the time (somehow) to answer.

Q1. The first question is the one most asked of you, we’re sure: how do you do it? How do you keep the blawg so incredibly up-to-date and informative? The Academy has a cracker-jack team of contributors, yet cobwebs sometimes grow between our posts. Please don’t give us that crap about, “Oh, I don’t need much sleep.” We’ve heard that one before. But you religiously post all day long. We’re not asleep then either. We’re at work, like you are. Do you have six arms? Are you freakishly able to do many things at once? Or, do you have associates/underlings/hangers-on helping you out by gathering info and posting it? We must know: step by step, how do you post so frequently and so intelligently. Frankly, we could use the advice.

A1. I have tried my best to locate and read interesting new federal appellate court decisions ever since I was invited to join the main law journal in law school. And before I recognized that becoming a lawyer was the most prudent career path for me to pursue, I had intended to pursue a career in journalism. Thus, keeping up with news articles and commentary about legal issues and important cases is almost second nature. Now, instead of having all of that information escape into the deepest recesses of my memory, it remains available online for me and others to access.

I wish there were some secret I could reveal about how to create a popular Web log devoted to appellate litigation. But I’m afraid that most of what it takes is self–evident. If you want to know whether the Sixth Circuit issued any interesting opinions today, go to the Sixth Circuit’s Web site and take a look. If you want to know whether Chuck Lane has an article in today’s edition of The Washington Post, go to the Post’s Web site and look around. Slate, on the other hand, makes it easy on me because it automatically sends an email whenever Dahlia Lithwick’s latest work appears online. (By the way, she was one of my very favorite legal journalists long before she invited me to write an essay that Slate published.)

In large measure, operating “How Appealing” involves doing what I’ve always done – staying up to date with news of interest and recent federal appellate court decisions that are newsworthy or that otherwise catch my eye. In addition, thanks to the amazingly widespread and highly intelligent readership that my blog has developed, I have dozens if not hundreds of additional sources who don’t hesitate to email me when they come across news or court rulings likely to be of interest to me or my blog’s readers. I have received pointers to decisions or news reports from federal and state judges, newspaper reporters, staffers who work in the executive and legislative branches of the federal government and the governments of various states, judicial law clerks, attorneys in private and government practice, law students, college students, and others who are interested in the subjects my blog focuses on.

When I began “How Appealing,” I never expected that my Web log would be receiving on an average weekday between 7,000 and 10,000 page visits. And when I take a look at the hit counter and see that the blog is being accessed repeatedly from the U.S. Supreme Court, from federal and state appellate and trial courts throughout the country, from universities and law firms, from federal, state, and local government offices, and from far and wide internationally, I experience the most pleasant form of disbelief. If the blog were receiving only 30 to 100 visits per day, I doubt that it would resemble what you see today. In other words, my large audience keeps me motivated to make the blog worthy of the attention it receives.

Q2. You describe yourself, or have been described, as an appellate lawyer (we Academy members are too high up in our ivory towers to actually go and do the research necessary to find the exact quote). How sharp do you find the distinction between trial practice and appellate practice? Put another way, do you spend virtually all your time practicing in the Third Circuit and other appeals courts, or do you also work in other areas of litigation practice that, like appellate work, are more focused on questions of law rather than issues of fact?

A2. I spend between 85 to 90 percent of my time doing real live appellate work, and nearly all of the rest of my time working on matters in which an appeal is expected to arise down the road and the goal is to position the case in the best possible light for when that happens. Even if I wasn’t lucky enough to be the author of – to quote an article by law.com’s U.S. Supreme Court correspondent Tony Mauro – “the pre-eminent blog for the appellate court community, the primus inter pares of all legal blogs, the undeniable Marbury v. Madison of the genre,” I’d still view myself as incredibly fortunate because I have the best possible job for me, serving as an appellate lawyer and heading up the appellate section of one of Pennsylvania’s largest and most highly–regarded law firms. Plus, in my spare time, I write a monthly column on appellate litigation for The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, and I serve as co–chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Appellate Courts Committee. On top of that, I earn a comfortable living while working on some really interesting cases for some wonderful clients.

I view the divide between trial litigation and appellate litigation as significant. I won’t suggest that someone can’t be excellent at both, but many more lawyers are excellent at neither. And a lawyer who believes -- simply because he or she is an excellent trial lawyer -- that he or she will be an excellent appellate lawyer is delusional. To me, an excellent trial lawyer is someone whom I can count on either to win at trial or to preserve all important errors for appellate review. Even the most highly effective appellate attorney cannot emerge victorious if the client’s trial lawyer failed to protect the record for appeal.

What makes for a good appellate lawyer is someone who understands how appellate courts approach cases and who can craft a written argument in even the most complex of cases that is straightforward and compelling. After spending two years clerking for a Third Circuit judge, and after having read thousands of opinions and nearly as many appellate briefs, I think I have a good idea of how best to structure an argument so that it is most likely to accomplish what a client desires. These days, fortunately for me, many clients and trial court practitioners are savvy enough to recognize that an experienced appellate attorney is a valuable addition to the team when a case is heading to appeal.

But don’t just take my word to establish the differences between trial work and appellate litigation. Many judges have spoken of the distinction. Chief among them is Third Circuit Senior Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert in his excellent book, “Winning on Appeal.” Judge Aldisert writes: “Appellate advocacy is specialized work. It draws upon talents and skills which are far different from those utilized in other facets of practicing law. Being a good trial lawyer does not mean that you are also a qualified appellate advocate.” Judge Aldisert has served as a federal appellate judge since 1968, and he is one of the most highly–regarded appellate judges in the Nation. Everything I have observed and experienced in the nearly fifteen years since I graduated from law school confirms the validity of the passage that I’ve quoted from Judge Aldisert’s book.

Q3. As an appellate practitioner, do you practice mostly in state or federal court? Have you noticed any differences in the quality of your opponent’s work in either arena? And here’s a touchy one: how about the quality of the decisions in each?

A3. I practice more frequently before federal appellate courts, and most frequently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. But I also practice quite often before the state appellate courts of Pennsylvania. Additionally, I have twice had the pleasure of sitting at counsel table in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I hope one day soon to have the opportunity to argue a case there.

The second part of your question defies easy answer. I hope that the appellate briefs that I file in the state appellate courts of Pennsylvania are of the same high quality as the briefs that I file in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Based on my dozen years as an appellate lawyer in private practice and my two–year Third Circuit clerkship that preceded my entry into private practice, I am firmly of the view that the quality of an appellate brief is based on the specific lawyers who have researched and written the brief. So, while it’s nice to have a highly respected law firm handling an appeal, it’s even more important to have very capable appellate lawyers actually doing the work. Thus, it is not the court, but the advocate, that determines the quality of a brief.

Turning last to the quality of decisions, let me begin by defining what I mean by “quality” in this respect. To me, an appellate court’s opinion is of high quality if it reaches the correct result for the right reasons in a manner that is persuasive and well–written. As with appellate advocates, the quality of an appellate decision depends in large measure on the judge who writes it. Although federal appellate court judgeships are viewed as more prestigious -- perhaps owing to the limited number of positions and the existence of life tenure -- it would not be correct to say that federal appellate judges are of uniformly higher quality than state appellate judges. And the same goes for their work product. It is impossible for me to say that federal appellate courts produce a higher quality work product than state appellate courts. Each decision must be judged on its own merit.

Q4. Two of your law partners recently became federal judges. Ever entertained any interest in doing the same? (Note: The Academy does not have the power to make it happen. Yet.) If you do have aspirations in that area, do you worry that the blawg will become an issue?

A4. Buchanan Ingersoll was justifiably proud that two of its shareholders recently joined the federal district court bench in Pittsburgh. And, the year before that, a shareholder from my firm’s Harrisburg office won election to a ten–year term on the Commonwealth Court, one of Pennsylvania’s two intermediate appellate courts. All three of these new judges were highly regarded and very productive attorneys, and my law firm’s loss was the federal and state judiciary’s gain. I have extraordinarily high regard for the fine men and women who agree to serve our Nation as federal and state court judges, often at significant personal and financial sacrifice.

I tremendously enjoyed the two years that I spend clerking for a federal appellate judge (Judge William D. Hutchinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, formerly a Justice on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania), and if the opportunity ever arose to become an appellate judge -- state or federal -- it would be very difficult to turn that down. At the same time, I’m now 38 years old -- still a bit young to become a judge, at least in my view -- and I really enjoy my work as an appellate lawyer in private practice.

I have been incredibly fortunate to work on some fascinating cases in my twelve years in private practice, both for paying and pro bono clients, and to achieve a good number of victories in cases of importance. Thanks to the Web log, I have gotten to know some of the lawyers who work for the Bush Administration in selecting and seeking the confirmation of judicial nominees, and I have gotten to know (or know better than before) lawyers working at the Senate Judiciary Committee for Senators on both sides of the aisle. Also, I understand that “How Appealing” is quite popular among current federal judicial nominees, and I’m reliably advised that a newly confirmed (and very highly regarded) federal appellate court judge recently told someone he accepted for a clerkship that the clerk–to–be should read “How Appealing” regularly in preparation for the clerkship. That was high praise indeed.

I have previously joked that “How Appealing” doesn’t count as a paper trail unless you print out the blog’s contents (which I’m told is exactly what the Ninth Circuit’s library does for some of the judges on that court; of course, the blog’s links don’t work as well on paper as they do electronically). But, in all seriousness, I try to keep the blog interesting but non–controversial. And while I’m a registered Republican who believes in judicial restraint, I strive not to allow my political views to influence what I post at my blog. Moreover, my strong support for the confirmation of highly qualified judicial nominees is non–partisan -- I’d continue to be pro–confirmation even if a Democratic President were nominating highly qualified liberal candidates for the judiciary. Although my Web log may demonstrate that I have a mind capable of grappling with complicated subjects, a sense of humor, a good memory for obscure details, a love of the cinema, and wide–ranging knowledge of the law and appellate advocacy, whether these qualities make me a good candidate for public service someday is something for others to decide. The large and devoted readership that my Web log now has among federal and state judges and law clerks, law professors and students, attorneys, journalists, and hordes of interested others here in the United States and elsewhere far exceeds the expectations that I had when I began the blog. If in the future anything else positive comes from having had a Web log, that will just be icing on the cake.

Q5. If the Ninth Circuit were to sponsor a professional sporting event, which one would it be? (Partial sponsorship is OK, such as the "Verizon Call to the Bullpen" or the Triple Crown's "Polaroid Photo Finish.") Would you buy a ticket to that event, watch it on TV, or just listen to the streaming audio?

A5. I think that the Ninth Circuit should co–sponsor the Grand Prix of Long Beach. I’m reminded of Judge Alex Kozinski’s recent dissenting opinion in which he feared (see footnote two) that Judge Stephen Reinhardt might try to wrongfully procure ownership of Judge Kozinski’s Lamborghini. Now even if that Lamborghini is merely fictional, an auto racing sponsorship is still appropriate, because sometimes that sport produces spectacular wrecks, which approximate what happens to some Ninth Circuit rulings on review by the U.S. Supreme Court. But, as with wrecks in auto racing, such reversals happen infrequently and yet attract a disproportionate amount of attention.

Q6. Do you get more pleasure from writing your monthly column (in which you state a position) or from blawgging (in which you generally remain neutral)? Do you feel any pressure to take the blawg in different directions -- e.g. taking more of a position in your commentary, moving left or right, etc.?

A6. I started the Web log as an adjunct to the monthly column, and I think that the blog had immediate credibility because I am the appellate columnist for a well–respected legal journal. Also, the blog has opened up a much larger audience for my column. Many hundreds of readers of my blog have signed–up to receive my monthly column via email on the day of its publication each month, including federal appellate judges, journalists from major news outlets, law professors, and law students. The Information Technology people at my law firm tell me that my monthly column's archive hosted at the law firm’s Web site is one of the most–visited pages on the law firm’s entire Web site, and that’s an accomplishment at a law firm that consists of more than 350 lawyers.

All that being said, I think that I enjoy the Web log more for several reasons. My Web log is a truly interactive experience. I receive many, many emails each day from readers who are sending along ideas or responding to posts. And although maintaining the blog may take much more time each month than writing my appellate column, each blog post takes much less time than each monthly column. So, on a per–item basis, blogging is much easier. Finally, the “20 questions for the appellate judge” feature of the blog is for me a labor of love, and I continue to be impressed with the incredibly high caliber of the judges who have agreed to participate.

On the issue of interjecting my personal views, I’m proud to have a blog that attracts readers from across the political spectrum. I try to link comprehensively to news and commentary concerning the judicial confirmation process, but on any given day it is possible that one point of view will predominate in what is newly available online. The one area in which I consciously allow my opinion to invade is in matters involving sound judicial administration. So, yes, I prefer the abolition of opinions designated at their issuance as non–precedential, and I’d prefer that recused judges not be counted as voting against rehearing en banc in all federal appellate courts, even though only some currently share that view. But what I aim for is to keep the blog interesting and, on occasion, humorous. I don’t envision any change in the quite limited extent to which my blog expresses my personal views. Personal views are a dime–a–dozen, but selecting judicial opinions of note from the undifferentiated mass of opinions issued each weekday takes real talent.

Q7. Which Supreme Court justice do you think would be the best kisser? (The Academy guesses Scalia. Grrrrowr!)

A7. I’m going to stay on that same elephant and pick Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Yet I doubt that any of the currently serving Justices was nominated or confirmed based on kissing ability. If I’m wrong, I’m sure I’ll start hearing about it in the emails that I receive from the readers of my blog.

Q8. How has the Third Circuit changed since you clerked?

A8. The Third Circuit has always had a reputation as a moderate court -- not as liberal as the Ninth Circuit but not as conservative as the Fourth or Fifth Circuits. I’d say that the Third Circuit was, compared to today, slightly more politically conservative when I clerked there, and the judge for whom I clerked was either the, or one of the, most conservative judges on that Court. Since the time of my clerkship, President Clinton appointed five judges who continue to serve on the Third Circuit, and of those five I’d say that only two qualify as dependably liberal, while the other three are moderate. Of course, a good percentage of the Republican nominees to the Third Circuit tend toward the moderate as well. But all of the judges on the court are very smart, very hard working, and very interested in reaching the correct result, regardless of what their own personal or political preferences might be. The Third Circuit has also been most fortunate to have had as its Chief Judge over the past five years one of the most brilliant and effective individuals I know, Chief Judge Edward R. Becker. He took senior status on Sunday, May 4, 2003, and his distinguished tenure as Chief Judge merits all of the praise it has been and will be receiving.

Q9. As a Third Circuit practitioner, what do you think about the prospect of Judge Alito as a Supreme Court justice?

A9. On a personal level, I find Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be quite charming. And I will be forever in his debt for the courtesy he showed in traveling in to Philadelphia from Newark, New Jersey last year to speak to the Appellate Courts Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association, a committee that I co–chair. As a jurist, Judge Alito is exceptionally smart, and I don’t sense from his opinions that he is actively campaigning for a promotion. I have no doubt that he would make an excellent U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But if that doesn’t happen, he is in line to be Chief Judge of the Third Circuit in due course. Few people outside of the judiciary may know this, but in addition to his work as a Judge on the Third Circuit, Judge Alito also chairs the federal court committee that is in charge of proposing and considering amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (see page five of this PDF document). The Chief Justice of the United States decides whom to appoint to that post, so this is further evidence of the high regard in which Judge Alito’s abilities are held.

Q10. Let's say a genie appeared before you and offered you an all-expense paid vacation with your wife and child anywhere in the world on the one condition that you forego the internet for 2 weeks . . . would you accept the offer? Where would you go?

A10. We accept! My wife, son, and I would like nothing more than to take a vacation right now. We’d all be very interested in a trip to Africa to go on safari, to Australia, to Hawaii, or to Alaska. And if it were necessary for me to stay in the Third Circuit, we’d more than happily settle for a week or two on St. John, USVI (and this place in particular is especially nice).

Q11. Who are your top five favorite current judges on the federal courts of appeal and why?

A11. The thing that makes a federal appellate judge a favorite of mine is the authorship of opinions that I enjoy reading. So, if I were marooned on a desert island and could only read the decisions of five federal appellate judges, which five judges would I choose?

Richard A. Posner, Frank H. Easterbrook, and Stephen Reinhardt would definitely be on my list. In contention for the remaining two slots would be Terence T. Evans, Bruce M. Selya, Jerry E. Smith, Alex Kozinski, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and Michael W. McConnell (from whom I’m expecting great things).

Q12. Since starting the blawg, what is the longest period of time you have gone without posting? How did that make you feel? Did you get a rash? Do you ever get sick of attending to the blawg?

A12. I think the longest “How Appealing” has gone without being updated was approximately a week at the end of August 2002 when I was on vacation. Blogging is fun, but many other things are even more fun (imagine that!).

Q13. In what ways has the blawg affected your career? Are there any career opportunities you hope the blawg will create for you? Like, maybe one day, you could maybe be, if you tried real hard, a Findlaw commentator? (trumpets)

A13. Becoming a FindLaw commentator would make it all worthwhile. But seriously, even before I began “How Appealing” I was well known within Philadelphia and Pennsylvania as an experienced and capable appellate advocate. I figured that it would be useful to become better known in a wider circle, and that certainly has happened. Having an essay published at Slate and being quoted and characterized as a knowledgeable appellate advocate in The New York Times, online at law.com, and in various other newspapers throughout the country have far exceeded my expectations. Lawyers or clients who are looking for quality appellate representation in a distant city often decide whom to hire based on that person’s reputation, experience, and record of accomplishment. Rarely do clients or referring lawyers choose to hire a lawyer because of that lawyer’s lack of a positive reputation, lack of accomplishment, or anonymity. So, I’d say that having a blog has helped my career in terms of remaining marketable and continuing to be in demand from clients and referral sources.

At the same time, it is only on very rare occasion that I specifically mention on the blog what appeals I’m working on. If the focus of the blog were “here’s what Howard Bashman is doing at work,” the blog would be even more boring than it is today.

Does having a popular blog prove anything? I think it does. In my view, the Internet is the ultimate meritocracy. Let me explain why. I’m one of Philadelphia’s most devoted fans of the Atlanta Braves. (Hey, Justice Clarence Thomas roots for the Dallas Cowboys and works in Washington, DC, so why not?) If I want to read about the Braves online, I have an almost unlimited number of choices. But my time, like everyone else’s, is limited. So I seek out the source for Braves information that I believe is the best. Similarly, nothing forces anyone to visit “How Appealing” online. But the fact that my blog receives an average of 7,000 to 10,000 visits per day from a readership whose free time is both quite limited and very valuable speaks volumes, as does the fact that so many view my blog as an excellent way to communicate relevant information to others who share many of the same interests.

As I mentioned previously, from an early age I had wanted to be a journalist. My father passed away suddenly and unexpectedly when I was sixteen, which left my mother, two younger sisters, and me in a precarious financial situation. As a result, before I graduated from college, I decided to pursue law school instead of a career in journalism because I figured that my chances of being self–sufficient immediately after completing school were much greater. And as a lawyer I have fortunately been successful, both financially and otherwise, far beyond my expectations. The blog has provided me with an always–available creative outlet as a writer and commentator. If I could make the same money working as a journalist that I earn as a lawyer, that would present a tempting alternative.

Thus, in closing, the one benefit I hope to achieve from operating “How Appealing” is to become the next appellate columnist for The National Law Journal. (Hey, at least one answer deserves a surprise ending.)

Q14. You don’t really like System of a Down, do you? That’s just a joke, right?

A14. I have eclectic tastes in music, as my blog posts here, here, here, here, here, and here demonstrate.

Last June I decided to drive to my law firm’s litigation retreat in Pittsburgh because, with all the flight–related security precautions, driving five hours versus flying for forty–five minutes along with arriving two hours early and hour journeys to and from the airport at both ends of the trip were all but equivalent. When you drive ten hours over two days, a little System of a Down helps you stay awake. And staying awake is preferable when driving. Also, several Philadelphia Phillies players last year used that group’s music as a theme song, meaning that snippets of these songs would be played as the players strolled up to bat. I’m a proponent of letting lawyers likewise play theme song snippets in court as they approach the podium. Perhaps newly confirmed Fifth Circuit Judge Edward C. Prado will see to it that a proper sound system allowing that to happen will be installed in New Orleans.

Q15. (Here’s our Barbara Walters question.) If you were a zoo animal, which would you be? A gnu? A panda? A giraffe? And why?

A15. I think I’d enjoy most being a koala, so long as I could reside in an indoor–outdoor display resembling my natural habitat.

Q16. You do realize, don't you, that a Bashman mention on How Appealing has become a point of status for law clerks everywhere? Did you ever think when you were a law clerk that you would be such a focal point for law clerks across the land?

A16. The answer to the first part of your question is yes, I have heard that, repeatedly. The answer to the second part of your question is no, definitely not.

Q17. Considering the above, do you feel like you have a responsibility of sorts not to take advantage of your fame? Do you find it ethically challenging to move from being a legal journalist to an officer of the court? Put another way, you receive and post many emails from current law clerks containing tidbits that their judges no doubt would not want them to reveal. Is there a limit, though, to what you would post? Have you received things from starry-eyed law clerks that you thought better of posting?

A17. No appellate judge or law clerk is going to change his or her views about the merits of a case based on the fact that he or she admires my work on “How Appealing” or because he or she has a positive opinion of me. Rather, the results of appeals in which I am involved as an advocate will continue to be determined by the applicable facts and law and by the quality of the advocates’ presentations, just as those considerations govern the outcome of every other appeal.

Of the items on that list of considerations, the only one that I have control over is the quality of my work product. My goal when I entered private practice as a young lawyer was to do top–notch work in the hope of achieving excellent results and to develop a reputation as a fine appellate attorney. Fortunately the lawyers with whom I worked appreciated my work product, and it often achieved favorable results.

As the years went by, I became the chair of my former law firm’s appellate litigation department. Then, when four of my colleagues and I left for Buchanan Ingersoll, I was fortunate to be given the opportunity to head Buchanan’s appellate practice group. Between that, my monthly appellate column in The Legal Intelligencer, and serving as co–chair of the Appellate Courts Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association, I already had plenty of reasons to ensure that my work today remains as high in quality as it ever was.

During my clerkship on the Third Circuit, I was frequently disappointed by the poor quality of the appellate briefs that I’d read from highly respected law firms. Now, of course, I realize that it’s not the law firm, but the people working on the brief, who determine its quality. And I do my utmost today, just as I have always done, to make sure that the briefs that I write are of uniformly high quality.

I don’t win every case -- no advocate who handles difficult matters does -- but I hope that even in cases in which my client does not prevail, the court nevertheless feels that my side of the case was very well presented. Any lawyer satisfied to rest on his or her laurels is surely going to be disappointed, and I’d never consider doing that. If anything, being more widely known as a result of the blog just makes me even that more vigilant to ensure that my work remains of uniformly high quality. So, while having the blog doesn’t increase my chances of winning as an advocate, it certainly does keep me motivated to ensure that my work continues to be the best that I’m capable of producing.

On the other issue you’ve raised, I’m pleased to say that I don’t think I have ever received any email that a court employee should not have sent to me, nor would I ever hope to receive such an email. Court employees are governed by mandates of confidentiality, and anyone who violates that confidentiality would be at risk of losing his or her job and could face other, even more severe consequences.

Shortly before the start of the U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2002 Term, a pseudonymous email arrived from a contributor to the “Greedy Clerks Board” providing the link to a post on that board which stated that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be announcing her retirement imminently from the U.S. Supreme Court. I had heard nothing of the sort elsewhere, so I entirely ignored the email and the post. The Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web Today” feature linked to the post later that day and contained a headline constructed around the pun of a “Ruth–less” Supreme Court. Of course, the information proved false, and thus my ignoring of it turned out to be the proper course of action. Even if the information had proved true, however, I’d still believe I did the proper thing by refusing to post what at the time was unsubstantiated gossip. And that’s how and where I draw the line. Fortunately, I have many sources who are known to me and are of rock–solid reliability and ethical comportment.

Q18. If the Ninth Circuit appeared on a special judicial-themed version of Survivor, who would win the million bucks and why?

A18. Well, if the U.S. Supreme Court had the final word, I can think of a few Ninth Circuit judges likely to be voted off of the island rather quickly. On the other hand, the judges based in Arizona, and Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld based in Fairbanks, Alaska, may have an advantage because they are accustomed to extreme conditions. But I’m going to pick a surprise candidate, Judge Rick Clifton of Hawaii. First, he seems like a very nice guy who, as a new arrival on the court, could fly under the radar for quite a while. And being from Hawaii, I think his survival skills would be well honed and much appreciated by the other judges on the court who come from less exotic environments.

Q19. Some of us will soon make the transition from clerking to private practice. It’s pretty cool right now living and working behind the scenes. But soon, we’ll be kicked out of the kingdom. Do you have any advice about how to make that change less painful?

A19. After completing my judicial clerkship, I went to a law firm where I worked very long hours, not always on glamorous projects. But I was very fortunate to be at a firm where my appellate clerkship and my talent at written advocacy were regularly put to good use. Thus, I never had the pleasure of being shipped off to some faraway city to be locked in a warehouse for days reviewing documents.

The keys to sanity and success as a young associate were (1) developing friendships with other associates who were experiencing much of the same thing and (2) working for lawyers who greatly appreciated my efforts. Plus, it never hurts to work on contingent fee cases and win, or to have clients that want you to work on their matters. Even better is having your own clients. Of course, nothing tops being independently wealthy, but that often isn’t an option and certainly wasn’t for me.

Q20. The Academy agrees with your position regarding 18-year-old Macallan’s. However, a reader inquires: why not Laphroig, yo?

A20. Well, first you must learn how to spell the name of that rather rare brand of Scotch -- it’s Laphroaig -- you left out the “a.” I purchased a bottle of the stuff a few years ago for a colleague who had given me frequent rides home from the office in his car. Although that colleague was a big fan of fine Scotch, he confirmed that Laphroaig is an acquired taste, given the heavy influence of the sea on its flavor.

But since it’s springtime now, I’ll opt for something other than Scotch. How about a Campari and soda?

2003-05-05T14:34:00.000-07:00

UFO Fest

This weekend, I will be attending the UFO Fest at McMenamin's Hotel Oregon. The festival commemorates the 1950 sighting of a UFO in McMinnville. This UFO was not, as some have been, later identified tentatively as an electrocuted cat.

In my research about the upcoming fest, I located these 60 indicators that you may have been abducted by aliens. If you have these traits, seek help. My personal favorite is the telltale fear of closets -- a sure sign of alien abduction.

2003-05-05T09:27:00.000-07:00

Shouts & Murmurs

Ian Frazier has this very funny piece about investing on the New Yorker's website.

2003-05-05T09:21:00.000-07:00

The Power of Google

I would never pay to remove the ads from this blog because I never cease to be amused by them. I think that the prominence of the word "sodomy" on the page has led to the ad for "gayweddings.com" which has appeared at the top of the page all morning. Hee hee hee. It almost makes one want to post manipulatively.

2003-05-01T11:39:00.000-07:00

The Sodomy Tour

Seattle-based writer David Schmader has penned a thoughtful and funny piece describing his recent tour through the four states with same-sex sodomy proscriptions that are at issue in Lawrence v. Texas. I especially enjoy this article because it is written by a non-lawyer and makes you think about the chasm between what people do in their real lives and what the Supreme Court may or may not decide. It's good. It's funny. Give it a read.

2003-04-30T11:01:00.000-07:00

How Are You Celebrating the One-Year Anniversary of How Appealing?

Here at The Academy, we are pleased to announce that we will be posting uber-blawgger Howard Bashman's answers to our 20 Questions on Tuesday, May 6, by noon EST. We have chosen May 6 because it marks the first birthday of How Appealing, the website that gives every law dork all the info we need to get through a day and to show others how incredibly in the know we are. Seriously, without Howard you would not be reading this right now. We are in his debt and we look forward to his answers to our piercing questions with eager anticipation. Although we agreed to 20 Questions, some of them are (admittedly) compound questions, so you can expect lots of info about Howard -- including (we hope) a detailed explanation of How He Does It. That, I'm sure my fellow demi-blawggers agree, is the most remarkable thing about How Appealing. Like my local TV news van always promises, he's there first, he's there live, and he brings you what you need to know. Plus, he's got interesting tastes in music for a 38 year old guy.

For those readers who think this is just a cheap ploy to get a bigger audience, we say: No Comment.