Harvard = TTT

Sotomayor just withdrew from consideration. Story/scoop please!?

#3, what is your source?

4, www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/18/sotomayor.withdraws/index.html
I think the traffic is slowing down the page.

@4 - She ate my chimichanga.

It's true!!! She's stepping down from the bench and accepting a first year associate position at Thompson Hine!!

Donkey show

do it. do it.

Kash, you are too beautiful to cover up your face with that burka. Please moderate.

TRANSLATION, Story 3: If liberals disagree with your legal analysis, they can help terrorists sue you.

but is anal bleaching right for me?

I just laughed at the article about the summers being in a shark tank all summer long. I don't feel sorry for them.

I also don't feel sorry for the hiring partner because he/she can make the summers dance, dance, dance, and dance all summer long.

All summers should be required to participate in a donkey show while undergoing anal bleaching.

La[W]rence Lessig. Get a copy editor..

Bankruptcy. Dig it.

Isn't it time to run a story on the biggest news of the day. . . .

#5 = loser (probably from Harvard)

All the Harvard grads at
CravaTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTh
couldn't keep the ship from sinking!

3/5 = cnn.com troll

Allen Stanford is the biggest fraud in America. Its not surprising that the royal-Douche of Antigua (that where he sends his clients stolen money) is claiming a conflict of interest. When you are drowning, you will drag just about anyone under.

What's particularly pathetic about no-Standardford is when he was asked about involvement with the CIA (a suggestion he posited in the minds of the reporters and public), he innocently gleamed as if he actually did the country some service in the past saying "no comment." Lets just say he has commented all he needs to the set of jurors that will appear in court to acquit him.

Whats really funny/pathetic is that Stanford claims to be a descendant of the founder of Standford University, and Stanford U has actually sued the groveling phoney to disassociate their name from him. HAHA - 10 generations of Stanford tradition indeed.

Lisa Madigan = 1st woman president. She is the shit.

Would someone be allowed to testify wearing a ski-mask? Of course not. Take off the veil.

Kashmir -

Please, please, please take a class on the first amendment before you make comments regarding the free exercise of religion.

Otherwise your commentary on legal issues will continue to be poorly conceived, and foolishly headstrong especially when you make such strong claims as "Justice seems to have a bag over its head in this ruling."

My understanding is the same as the judge's: hijab (head covering) is generally considered mandatory by Muslims, niqab (face veil) is extra. But let's say that is irrelevant, her personal belief is the extra mile is mandatory. How would having a female judge help her? Wouldn't they have to clear the courtroom of all men? What about the opposition, no male lawyers or male witnesses either.
I was in the Buffalo airport recently and there was this group of niqabi who I assume asked to be examined by a female security officer, so they took them off to the side and they removed their veils in front of this female officer, but they weren't in a different room, everyone else in the airport could see their faces too.

What a surprise, bankruptcy is up in this economy. Here's another obvious one, divorce is on the rise, too, amidst all these money woes: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2009/06/17/california-divorce-recession-alimony/

Mmm, as for the veil thing, i appreciate that we have religious differences and we should reasonably accommodate those beliefs. But there is that word "reasonable" there. if you want a photo ID, you have to uncover your face. if you want to testify in court, you have to do the same. in fact aren't there anti-KKK laws on the books in many places saying that generally you can't go around wearing a mask?

And then she goes, "well, gee, how about a female judge?" Well, exactly how does accommodating that square with the rule against sex discrimination?

Sorry, the judge was right and she was wrong.

What a surprise, bankruptcy is up in this economy. Here's another obvious one, divorce is on the rise, too, amidst all these money woes: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2009/06/17/california-divorce-recession-alimony/

If she was suing a rental car company that means she rented a car, yes? I doubt Michigan allows people to wear a veil on their drivers license. Wouldn't she have had to show this and her face to compare it to in order to rent the car in the first place? Maybe the car rental company was sensitive and didn't make her show her face, but that seems to negate the usefulness of having photo id in the first place.

Michigan Policy: An individual may be photographed wearing a religiously-mandated head cover, as long as it does not touch the person’s eyebrows. If an applicant’s face is covered by fabric for religious reasons, exposing only the eyes, she will be requested to remove it before being photographed. The applicant will be offered the option of being photographed without her face veil by a female staff person. This procedure could only be done before or
after usual business hours, and no male employee would be present.
Source: Michigan Vehicle Code, Sections 28-292 and 257-310.

Agreed 22 and 24. Lose the veil and get a life The judge was right and she was wrong.

Agreed 22, 24, and 30. The girl with the veil needs to grow up. Women in Saudi have to cover up, whether in front of a court or not. You don't get to sit around and argue with the judge about it. And if she doesn't like the rules of the court, I suggest she move somewhere - like Saudi - where she can freely go to court with the veil.

For great car hire visit www.bestcarhire.co.uk