Which is it that you should not wear to the airport - the fake bomb or the bad hair?

lat -- you need to read your own website.

that link showing the unfortunate resemblance of senator wide stance to the late CJ-Rehnquist (RIP) was pointed out by someone filling in for lat about a week or two ago.

How about this for a non sequitur?

http://jezebel.com/gossip/justice-league/how-should-sexual-offenders-be-punished-302533.php

Ew!

The first time I've ever seen Lat cite a case and he f's it up. It's United States v. Mendez, 691 F.Supp.2d 656. Where's the serial comma brigade?

Good call. If Lat has citation skills like that, maybe L2L has a chance after all!

Is it just me, or does it seem inconsistent for Judge Cassell to make a stink about judicial pay? Before taking the bench he spent 10 years teaching at Univ. of Utah. It's not like he gave up a lucrative private practice career for public service.

Relatedly, my sense is that in most cases a firm isn't going to be terribly interested in someone who has spent 10 years in academia (beyond some kind of peripheral advisory role or maybe some high-profile-but-low-paying appellate work). If that's true, and if it's also true that Judge Cassell will be marketable to big firms because of his time on the bench, shouldn't he be *thanking* the federal judiciary, rather than dissing it?

How much does that joker get paid? Give me a break.

First, check the C.V. on Cassell. This isn't any ordinary d.ct. judge we're talking about. The guy graduated top of his class from Stanford, pres. of Law Review, and clerked on the S.C. (after clerking for Scalia on the DC Cir.). If Cassell wants to be a millionaire partner anywhere tomorrow, he can be. But that's missing the point. He's a tremendous judge and his absence from the bench is going to be unfortunate. My guess is that pay is definitely not the primary reason he's leaving, however. Rather, I'd chalk it up to the fact that he realizes it's going to be a Democrat white house soon and he's got no chance of being elevated to the 10th Cir. in the next decade (same way Luttig realized he had no chance of making the S.C.), and decided to move on in life. If anything, he probably felt like he ought to at least take advantage of the resignation to also get a few choice words in regarding the judicial pay scale.... which is indeed rediculous. Any first year at a big firm, after considering the bonus, is making 40k for a year than Cassell would be if he stayed on the bench.

This is what I was talking about: "With three talented children approaching college years, it has been difficult for my wife and me to make financial plans." (from the WSJ LawBlog story)

He's been in government service for 23 years! This hardly snuck up on him. I agree that judges should get a raise - albeit a relatively modest one. It just seems disingenuous for a lifetime public servant to suddenly say, "oh yeah, and the pay sucks, too."

He should be thankful he was able to spend plenty of time with his now-college-age kids and quit his griping. If he's ready to start stacking his big firm cheddar, good for him. But the pay was good enough to keep this eminently qualified guy in a variety of public roles for over 20 years. It can't be *that* bad.

A federal judge in Utah lives in a bigger house and probably can afford the same cars as a partner in San Fran. Hours are infinitely better. Plus, retirement at full pay.

What's happening with LEWW??? I didn't get the memo saying it is only bi-weekly now. I am definitely not coming to this site as often as I used to if they stop doing LEWW (or if they do an anti-elitist version of LEWW with a bunch of people from loser schools).

Folks . . . wake up. If you were a federal district judge, why would you pick NOW to return to academia? After six years? After hiring your clerks? Some random week in September? Especially when the school you're going back to teach at is one where you've already worked as a full-time professor. What has happened in the last two weeks on a national level that might make it a lot more attractive for a judge with huge political ambitions to be "free"??? THINK!

The comment pointing out the physical resemblance between the late Chief Justice and Senator Craig was particularly unfortunate because the Chief would have been one of the two least likely male Justices on the Court (along with Justice Scalia) to ever do anything approaching what Craig did. At least when Merck made the same remark a few weeks ago, he made it a point to say that he was not trying to imply anything about the Chief.

That's right, Fed Soc, you tell 'em. I mean, everyone knows that when you point out the physical resemblance between two people, you're really saying they're both likely to have anonymous gay sex in airport bathrooms.

And, as if you needed more evidence that physical resemblance bears no relation to actions, consider this: Fed Soc members all resemble David Duke. Q.E. mu'fuhkin' D!

7:55 and 1:07,

You're both idiots. Lat's right, you're wrong. There are spaces between case reporter abbreviations of more than one letter (e.g., F.3d but F. Supp.). And for the record, Mendez is not in F. Supp. 2d, it's in F. Supp.

9:22: I don't think Lat was implying anything, I just think that by respect for the late Chief it would have been a nice touch to make a comment specifically pointing out that no disrespect was meant for the Chief. No big deal either way. And I find it amusing that you would point out to David Duke, even as a joke. After all, conservatives and Republicans have consistently and unilaterally distanced themselves from Duke. Contrast this with your fellow liberal Democrats who invited Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to speak at the Democratic Convention as recently as 2004.

I like that "Fed Soc" has decided that Justice Scalia is "less likely" to solicit gay sex in a bathroom than, say, Breyer or Kennedy. I'd love to see the analysis on that one! Keep up the good work Fed Soc.

Fed Soc to 190k!

Did you read that Mukasey opinion Lat? Or just do a word search for "Shakespeare" amongst opinions written by Mukasey? He certainly wasn't "snarking" on the Sentencing Guidelines. If anything, he may have been snarking on the Sentencing Commission, but more likely he was snarking on Congress, which is a perfectly acceptable pasttime amongst Bush Administration members.

Fed Soc,

A better comparison, I think, would be the Dems' treatment of former KKK member, and current U.S. Senator, Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) to the Republicans' treatment of Duke.

Fed Soc = assclown

FIRST!

Go 10:23! You beat me to it.

7:55 PM is wrong:

United States v. Mendez, 691 F. Supp. 2d 656 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).

You forgot the spaces between "F." and "Supp." and "Supp." and "2d" d-bag.

And, as I've already pointed out, Mendez is NOT in F. Supp. 2d; it's in F. Supp. In other words, Lat had it right.