2nd

pretzels

Scalia is such an asshole. That's why all the ladies love him.

So Scalia lamenting that his old law school is not as conservative/rigorous as it once was = "openly campaigning against a particular political candidate"? The article didn't even mention either presidential candidate. Elie = Obama whore. The guy needs to be voted off the ATL island.

Top article does not say what Elie says it does. Rule 11 him.

Eli stop with your sensational bullshit headlines

you're ruining this blog you partisan whore

Looks like we've got an Obamaton on our hands. Next time, please read the article before posting a partisan lead-in. You're not doing Obama any favors.

Looks like we've got an Obamaton on our hands. Next time, please read the article before posting a partisan lead-in. You're not doing Obama any favors.

Lat: Honestly, you need to axe Elie. She can't even do the "non-sequiturs" right.

ATL = partisan hack TTT

I'm an Obama supporter, and I agree w/ 5 and 8/9 (thanks for posting twice!). feel free to include snarky politcial commentary, Elie, but at least be accurate about it.

also agree w/ 4.

Elie is just plain stupid. The WSJ piece did not mention any political candidate. How is it "openly campaigning" to speak the truth that UChicago Law is slipping?

Elie needs to go. He isn't funny, and he can't write well. His posts just seem "off." David, this was a fantastic blog when you were writing it. You need to try harder to find someone who is able to step into your shoes. Elie is not cutting it. These days, the only thing keeping me reading the blog is the same impulse that prevents you from taking your eyes away from a car crash.

Guys, I read the article. The "openly campaigning" line was a joke.

... Because clearly if Scalia (or Ginsburg or anyone else on the Court) were "openly campaigning" for either presidential candidate, we wouldn't be talking about it in non-sequiturs.

OK? Alright. Sorry for the "confusion."

I don't understand the joke--you're saying it is a joke because if it really happened you'd give it more attention?

Elie, accept the criticism--make your titles accurate--and learn from it.

Elie seems to have failed whatever 1L class teaches students that topical humor should be relevant.

I think non-sequitur was right. Ellie's comment had nohing to do with the linked article.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he is referring to the previous article about clerks not campaigning for candidates. I won't be so hard on you Elie, but the connection was too tenuous in both time and place to work properly.

Elie seems to be suggesting that since Justice Scalia could not have openly campaigned against Obama (per today's earlier thread) so instead he attacked classes being taught at Chicago these days. Then, according to Elie's reasoning, Justice Scalia was essentially attacking Obama half-openly; it's like a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing thing.

If that's what Elie is trying to say, he's just dumb.

If that's in fact what Justice Scalia was trying to do, Justice Scalia was even dumber, because only Elie who is that dumb would get it.

Overall, a whole day of dumb posts.

Elie, you're becoming an embarrassment to the people on the left. Please get your act together.

Best,
a left-wing judicial clerk who's not openly campaigning against anybody except Elie.

I'm still looking for the article about a respected justice. The one you link to is just about a chubby funster discussing bread, butter and six-packs.

Keep the faith, Elie. Don't listen to the naysaying by every Tom, Dick and Track who comments.

OBAMA 08
HOPE = JOKE

This topic is absolutely idiotic. Yes, jusices are supposed to be 'impartial' in their application and interpretation of the law. That doesn't mean that they don't have / cannot express political views, particularly concerning matters that have no immediate relevance to their functional role in the judiciary.

The post smacks of a potshot by another pissed off liberal looking for any excuse to accuse and blame. Lat, why don't you start monitoring your fucking content. (although, who watches the watchers, eh?)

Am I the only one who is starting to think that the "Brain" avatar is becoming disturbingly ironic? Seriously Elie, if it's supposed to be a "joke" then it's supposed to be funny.

Come on, Elie. Your comment at 15 is a cop-out. You purposely mischaracterized Scalia and now you claim its a joke. We're not stupid.

Elie pumps for Obama every chance he gets. In a coma and on a repirator, Scalia is smarter and a better lawyer than any of you big firm poop mounds. Now get back to work collating.

I actually think there was a veiled shot at Obama's prior courses at UC when Scalia derided "'Law and Poverty,’ or other made-up stuff." Doesn't that sound like Obama's seminar on racism and the law?

Bitter much Elie? Loser. I suppose you think that if people don't vote for Obama they are racists. You are a simpleton.

Any "law and basketweaving" course is nothing more than a social science course that should be taught in undergrad, not law school.

wow, this is LAME. some people are saying it's tongue in cheek or humor that seeks to misdirect but it seems like a lame partisan potshot that is not based in any reality (after having read the WSJ blog entry as well as the accompanying article). more than that, do you realize how scandalous it would be for a sitting supreme court justice to openly endorse a presidential candidate? i'm pretty sure that's against court rules.

The "Non-Sequiturs" section means that each entry (or link) is a non-sequitur from the next. For example, a link to an article about tax law can be followed by a tort reform link.

For reasons that should be obvious to everyone except apparently Mystal, "Non-Sequitur" does not mean that the link description should be a sarcastic partisan smear (masquerading in hindsight as a "joke") completely unrelated to the actual link.

Davis is more TTT than Hastings, which is plenty TTT.

I am enraged by the first non-seq. It is a pure lie. This is the first time I have ever complained about ATL, but this was not even close.

I agree with almost all of the comments here. The first non-seq was a complete fabrication. Scalia did not mention any politician. He only talked about the law school he taught at.

Lat, you need to either fire Elie or get another editor to proof all his mistakes and mischaracterizations.

Elie, you are making me miss the typos. This is egregious, either as a failure of ethics or as a failure of humor (my money is on the former).

Okay, I'm done. Somebody email me when Lat gets someone else to run this thing.

GUIDE TO ELIE TO STOP SUCKING SO MUCH:

1) No one cares about your whiny political views. They show up at least once daily, are completely moronic, and usually take the form of "There's not even a counterargument to anything I say! I mean, DailyKos didn't have one, so what could there be???"

2) No one cares about some random Harvard in-joke that only people in your class know about. This goes for random professors dying from random schools I don't care about, too.

3) You are black. No one else cares. Do you notice how Lat didn't make sure to post at least once daily about issues relating to taking it up the butt? Well, if you want to be "we," then stop posting every day about how black people aren't in advertising or we need diversity catalogs or whatever other moronic thing you care about that no one else does.

4) Posts should be about the law. The site is called Above the Law.

5) Posts should be about things that are interesting. "Clerks can't have bumper stickers" or "Biden filed some tax returns, and they had stuff in them" are boring and have nothing to do with anyone raising my salary to $190,000 or what guys from my high school used to do all the time.

6) Frankly, very few of your posts have anything to do with anyone raising my salary to $190,000.

7) Lat is not funny because he uses some idiotic play on words for his post titles. He is funny because he includes catty insults and gossips about people.

8) Corollary to #7: Suck at least one cock per day. Only flaming homos have the requisite cattiness / snarkiness to pull off a gossip blog. Black guys with oddly shaped heads would do better to register reparations-now-you-whitey-republican.blogspot.com and go rant there.

Elie to Blogspot.com!

This post is stupid - you can just make up sensationalist smears against Supreme Court justices and then claim it was a "joke." Jokes are supposed to be funny. Even my cousin Vinny (#31), not one of our nation's great legal minds, gets what's wrong with this post.
I was giving Elie the benefit of the doubt, but this is getting ridiculous. The grammar, the typos, the lack of humor, and the left-wing whining is getting to be too much for me. I'll check back in a few weeks and see if he is still here.

Literally the only reason I still read ATL is because I enjoy all of the comments trashing Elie, who deserves all the trashing he can get. The posts, they suck now though...

Palin's email hacked: What did Obama know and when did he know it?

ATL is not worth reading anymore. I'm done.

Oh, and there is a perfectly good reason male paralegals make more than female paralegals. Men are more likely to be insistent when it comes to salary negotiations. Women are socially trained to be nice and not make waves, thus they are not as pushy re money.

Only thing stupider than the original post? Comment #37.

Elie, don't jump in and try to defend yourself by implying your readers are too dumb to get your "joke."

#37 makes up for the horrible original post by Elie.

Wait the fuck a minute, people. You are all blathering about Elie's typos and partisanship and poor sense of humor, when there is a Constitutional crisis at hand!

Dammit, people - a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE is openly campaigning for one of the candidates! Think of the separation of powers issues! How is anyone going to have confidence in Supreme Court decisions if the justices are openly partisan?

This is serious business.

Now, let me go read that article that Elie so kindly linked to for some more details...