Recently we've been thinking about law-related names for racehorses. The subject came up when we were reading about how Big Brown, the 2008 Kentucky Derby winner, might win the Triple Crown and join the company of Affirmed (pictured) -- the last winner of the Triple Crown, in 1978.

Hearing about a racing horse named "Affirmed" led us to start thinking about other legally-themed horse names. A few ideas:

-- "Reversed" (or "Reversed and Remanded")

We liked how it played off of "Affirmed." But it's "probably not the kind of message you want to send to the oddsmakers," said a friend.

-- "Cert Denied"

Kinda badass, no? We'll put it down as a possibility.

-- "GVR"

Suggested by another friend, to continue on the Supreme Court disposition theme. "GVR" stands for "Grant, Vacate, and Remand" -- which can, depending on the circumstances, be something of a benchslap. But maybe it's too technical, appreciated only by SCOTUS junkies?

-- "Desuetude"

Nominated by a third friend (in the midst of studying for law-school finals). It's erudite, but a bit short on sex appeal.

Have an idea for a law-related racehorse name, à la Affirmed? If so, feel free to leave it in the comments. If we get enough nominations, maybe we'll hold a contest. Also, feel free to weigh in on the names previously mentioned, if you strong feelings about any of them.

Update: Please make sure that your nomination complies with these naming rules (posted by a helpful commenter).

Further Update: Okay, we've reached the 400-comment mark on this post, so we're closing the thread. Poll to follow shortly.

More about racehorses and the law, after the jump.

* Renomination of Steven Bradbury to head OLC seen as diss to Dems. [New York Times]

* Barry Bonds seeks dismissal of perjury charges. Depends on what the meaning of "is" is? [San Francisco Chronicle via How Appealing]

* Senate debates whether to grant phone companies immunity from suits arising out of their helping out on warrantless wiretapping. [Washington Post]

* Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan seeks Supreme Court review of his conviction. [Chicago Tribune via How Appealing]

* Also turning to the SCOTUS: cheeky pro se litigant who forestalled foreclosure for 11 years. [WSJ Law Blog]

* You've got mail? Maybe not, at least at the White House, which is having some email archiving problems. [Washington Post]

News of an amusing appellate decision, from that leading source of legal news, ESPN:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a filly can't be named "Sally Hemings" after Thomas Jefferson's most famous slave and reputed lover.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that the Jockey Club can legally bar horse owner Garrett Redmond from naming his 4-year-old horse after Hemings.

We can understand the Sixth Circuit's reluctance to allow anyone to "ride Sally Hemings." Thomas Jefferson already tried that, and his historical reputation will never be the same.

But the court's decision was grounded in law as well as good taste:

Judge Alice Batchelder, writing for the three-judge panel, said Redmond has other options that may be approved by the Jockey Club, which forbids horse owners from using names of famous or notorious people without special permission.

No "famous or notorious" people? So much for Redmond's fallback option, "Wanda Sykes."

Did being denied this name of choice have an adverse effect on the horse's performance? Quite possibly:

The horse, now known as "Awaiting Justice," ran at Churchill Downs on July 1 and at Ellis Park in Henderson on July 25. She did not finish in the top 3 in either race.

A little more discussion, after the jump.

We come not to rank on this motion, but to praise it. It's cute, it's funny, and it's appropriate Friday fodder:

Could one make fun of this hapless husband, for letting his wife drag him on a 350-mile bike tour? Sure. But this motion, while chuckle-worthy in a sitcom sort of way, isn't TRULY embarrassing to the lawyer in question -- unlike, say, moving for an extension on account of "inebriation constituting excusable neglect."

We hope the court granted the motion, and that Mr. Azbill's counsel is enjoying the bicycle trip -- perhaps taking place as you read this.

Update: A commenter reports: "motion was granted on 7/23. counsel was able to 'please his wife.'"

A summary of the action, courtesy of Howard Bashman (aka "Ho Bash," as one commenter dubbed him):

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds that the American Civil Liberties Union and its co-plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the National Security Administration's interception without warrants of certain telephone and email communications...

Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder issued the lead opinion, and Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge Gibbons's opinion begins, "The disposition of all of the plaintiffs' claims depends upon the single fact that the plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence that they are personally subject to the TSP. Without this evidence, on a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs cannot establish standing for any of their claims, constitutional or statutory...."

And Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented. He would hold that the plaintiffs possess standing and that "the [Terrorist Surveillance Program] as originally implemented violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978."

Is this ruling a surprise? Not so much. First, most legal analysts were deeply disappointed by the handiwork of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (E.D. Mich.), the district judge in this case.

Second, here's a telling detail from the Sixth Circuit website:

Does the Sixth Circuit website always feature a patriotic graphic of the United States filled with a flag pattern? Or is this just a special Fourth of July thing they haven't gotten around to changing back yet?

ACLU v. NSA [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (PDF) via How Appealing]
Many Experts Fault Reasoning Of Judge in Surveillance Ruling [New York Times]

* With tax law, the sky's the limit. Seriously. [CNN; TaxProf Blog]

* Slow... Typist... Sues... His... Law... School. Must have taken forever to type the complaint (especially with a last name like "Zachariasewycz"). [WSJ Law Blog]

* ACLU seeks disclosure on NSA wiretaps in the Sixth Circuit. [SCOTUSblog]

* Vote Roberts for Chief Justice! [SCOTUSblog]

Federal judges represent some of the best and brightest minds the legal profession has to offer. Although there are exceptions, federal judges generally have incredible credentials and adhere to the highest ethical standards.

In contrast, state court judges tend to be icky. When you read in the news about a judge who sexually harassed a secretary, got arrested for drunk driving, or used a penis pump behind the bench, the odds are high that it will be a state rather than federal judge.

When a former state judge gets confirmed to a federal judgeship -- as is increasingly the case, since state court judges are often "safe" picks in these politically charged times -- does she shed her icky ways?

Not necessarily. Consider the tale of Judge Deborah L. Cook, a member of the Sixth Circuit since 2003. From Muckraker/CIR:

A federal judge identified by the Center for Investigative Reporting for making campaign contributions while on the bench has apologized for violating the judicial code of conduct.

Judge Deborah L. Cook of Ohio made two political donations after she was appointed by President Bush to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003. A CIR report and story for Salon.com on Oct. 31 revealed that both Cook and a Clinton-appointed judge, Dean D. Pregerson of California, had apparently given campaign contributions, though federal judges are prohibited from doing so.

A pretty dumb-ass mistake. The limitations upon political activity by members of the judicial branch are familiar even to rookie law clerks. It's something you learn about at clerk orientation.

Ah, orientation -- that's where Judge Cook lays the blame for her mistake:

“I violated this proscription against federal judges making political contributions early in what I hope will be a long tenure,” Cook wrote in her letter of apology [to Chief Judge Danny Boggs], which was filed with Judge Boggs’ order [resolving the complaint]. “Though not an excuse, my misstep here resulted from habit and a lack of awareness of the prohibition.”

Cook wrote that she was used to making contributions as a state judge. According to her letter, she did not attend the “New Judges School” after she was confirmed as a federal judge and “thus missed being alerted there to the federal canon.” The “Baby Judges School,” as it is often called by judges, is a non-mandatory training and orientation for newly appointed judges.

"Baby Judges School": Ignore it at your peril.

A little bit more, after the jump.

A new website, like Above the Law, can take some getting used to. And we're still working out various glitches and kinks. Please bear with us, and please give us your feedback about any problems you encounter; it's very helpful. (And yes, we are considering a font overhaul. If you have views on that subject, pro or con, post 'em in the comments.)

This is just a quick, admittedly pedantic post, to help familiarize you with the features of this site. Think of it as a little "user's manual" for maximizing your enjoyment of ATL:

1. "After the jump" = Click on the little "Continue reading" link at the end of the post excerpt on the main page.

2. You can also read a post in its entirety, or generate a link to it, by clicking on either (a) the title of the post, or (b) the "Permalink" icon (that little paper-clip icon in the lower right-hand corner of each post).

3. You can email a post to a friend or colleague by clicking on the little envelope icon in the corner.

4. The most emailed articles appear in the column on the left-hand side of the page. We monitor this closely because it shows us what you, our readership, find most interesting. Then we can pander to you even more shamelessly.

5. You can append a comment to a post by clicking on the little bubble icon. Cute!

6. At the end of each post, after the words "Posted in:", you'll see what are called "Tags." These are specific subjects discussed at Above the Law. If you click on the Tag in question, you'll be taken to a page that collects all the posts about that topic. This allows you to see our coverage of a subject over time, or how a story unfolded.

Before we bore experienced readers to tears, here are two more novel things worth checking out:

1. The Forum. It's in the left-hand column. If there's not enough to do in the comments section, you can now start your own discussions completely independent of our ten or twelve chunks of commentary, news, and pining after litigatrices like Mary Kay Vyskocil and Rosemary Alito (that's coming next month).

Registration can be anonymous. Why review that redline of the merger agreement when you can argue over whether HLS Dean Elena Kagan could destroy Columbia Dean David Schizer in a steel cage match? (See here.) Or speculate on who will be the next great "feeder judge" to the Supreme Court? (See here. And yes, we agree with "Mac": judicial hottie Jeffrey Sutton (6th Cir.) is already funneling his kids to Nino. One this Term, one next Term).

To register for the Forum, click HERE. We reserve the right to indulge our god complexes and delete your posts (or ban users) for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to: we thought the post was off-topic, the post was promoting Internet Viagra, or we were bored and deleting users is MU-HA-HA... fun. That said, we're extremely lazy totalitarians and aren't inclined to delete anything unless extremely provoked. Or bored.

2. The Archives. Also accessible through the left-hand column. If you click on the word "Archive" -- no, we don't think you're retarded, we're just really anal -- you'll be taken to the ATL archives, where past posts are collected and organized by topic and by date. We've actually been secretly "testblogging" here since July -- think of it as our answer to the Katie Couric "shadow show" -- so there's a lot of stuff to check out, even though we only went "live" this week.

That's enough administrative crap for now. Back to matters of, er, "substance"!

Among federal appeals courts, the Sixth Circuit is legendary for the lack of collegiality -- nay, outright dischord -- among its members. In this respect, it is perhaps rivaled only by the Ninth Circuit.

And the Sixth Circuit's fine tradition of internal strife and judicial cattiness continues. In an opinion issued today, the fairly liberal Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey -- mentioned back in 2000 as a possible Al Gore Supreme Court pick -- delivered this bench-slap to her staunchly conservative colleague, Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs:

I write separately in order to express my dismay at Judge Boggs's unjustified attack directly on both the capital defense bar and indirectly on the members of this court. For the chief judge of a federal appellate court to state that it is "virtually inevitable" that "any mildly-sentient defense attorney" would consider playing the equivalent of Russian roulette with the life of a client is truly disturbing. Such a comment is an affront to the dedication of the women and men who struggle tirelessly to uphold their ethical duty to investigate fully and present professionally all viable defenses available to their clients. It also silently accuses the judges on this court of complicity in the alleged fraud by countenancing the tactics outlined.

MEOW! Somebody pass the Fancy Feast -- Martha's getting hungry...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit -- still not one happy family? [How Appealing]
Poindexter v. Mitchell [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (pdf)]