Usually a Q-and-A session at one of these events has at least one crazy person (e.g., “Wages” Lady). But this one turns out to be disappointingly tame.
Michael Greve, AEI Fellow: If you close your eyes, you’d think that Arnold Schwarzenegger is speaking — if Governor Schwarzenegger were a guru of federalism and preemption doctrine.
E. Donald Elliott: Our professor for Complex Civil Litigation at Yale (read: Remedial Civil Procedure). Very smart, very affable.
(But what have you done with your hair, Professor Elliott? Have you been experimenting with Soul Glo?)
Middle-aged woman with red hair and plastic glasses: Shamelessly pimps an article she wrote “for Insight magazine, which I have copies of, in case anyone wants one.”
(No, we don’t.)
The pattern of her suit is shimmering on our TV. We’re getting dizzy. She’s going on and on.
Again with the damn article, “for Insight magazine.” No, we don’t want a copy.
Ted Frank: Do you have a question?
“Insight” Lady: Yes.
[Goes on for another minute or two, ends speech without discernible question -- not even the pro forma "What do you think of all this?" The panelists gamely try to make sense of her ramblings.]
The panel is asked to predict how the Court will decide Watters. Various panelists talk about the possibility of a 9-0 decision, until Quester corrects them and earns nerd points: there will be only eight justices participated in the decision, since Justice Thomas has recused himself from the case.
Nice catch, Amy!
Earlier: Surely Better Than a Daytime Soap
By David Lat