This is hilarious. I posted my essay on whether the Ten Commandments decisions are overblown on In The Agora and Adam Packer, one of the other contributors there, diagnosed people like us perfectly:
We're just dorks. We can't resist getting all hot and bothered about every con law case that comes down the pike. Now where's new info on the latest white girl to get kidnapped or latest Brad Pitt development???
That truly did make me laugh out loud at the screen. It reminds of the story in The Onion about the high school kid who was obsessed with the Supreme Court and his parents staged an intervention to break the brainwashing.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life held a public discussion of the Ten Commandments cases to be heard by the Supreme Court this week. That discussion featured Douglas Laycock, one of the foremost church/state scholars in the nation and the associate dean of the University of Texas Law School…
Not that this will surprise anyone, but even when he's right, he can't seem to avoid misrepresenting what the ACLU says or does. In this post at STACLU, he cites a column by Nat Hentoff (one of my absolute favorite writers) where Hentoff takes the ACLU to task for inconsistency in a pair of cases,…
We get the Sunday New York Times delivered every week (which accounts for the higher-than-usual number of stories from the Times that I link on Sundays...), and I read most of it, but I usually run out of steam before I get to the Magazine, unless the cover story really grabs me. This week was one…
The only two sure things in life are death and taxes, the old saying goes. I think by now we can safely add a third certainty - reading a Phyllis Schlafly column will leave you baffled that someone could write such nonsense with a straight face. Her latest column, about the Supreme Court's current…
It reminds of the story in The Onion about the high school kid who was obsessed with the Supreme Court and his parents staged an intervention to break the brainwashing.
I think my wife might try the same thing soon. She didn't seem too amused yesterday morning when I cut her off in the middle of a phone conversation so I could download McCreary. No sense of humor at all.
Dan wrote:
And she calls herself a law student! A real law student would have been disappointed that you got to it first!
And she calls herself a law student! A real law student would have been disappointed that you got to it first!
LOL. She's still in the wide-eyed, overwhelmed, 1L state of mind. Once she gets past that, she'll run circles around me. Of course, our 10-year old runs circles around me, so that might not be the best yardstick...
Why are the funniest things the ones that are SO true??
Adam wrote:
You know, it really is true. I think one of the reasons why I'm so incredibly disappointed in both the Raich and Kelo decisions is because I really love the court. The court is the last bastion - the only bastion - of intellectuals in government. Elected officials are almost uniformly non-intellectual (which is not the same thing as non-intelligent) because what intellectual could tolerate the dishonesty inherent in electoral politics? Only on the court can you find men and women of genuine intellectual curiosity and great learning. Only on the court can you do your job without pandering to the ignorant and the credulous, with genuine concern for what is right rather than what is expedient or popular. That's why I love the judiciary and am so fascinated by them - and why I'm so disappointed when they get something so obviously wrong.
I liken it to people who have to scratch every itch. Sometimes an itch needs to be scratched. But one can scratch an itch until it bleeds. It doesn't need to be overdone. But it does no harm in the meantime.
The different decisions in 10C cases are interesting.