* Lower wages for women? Always. [MSNBC]
* Trial date set for only charged Abu Ghraib officer. [Jurist]
* Racial controversy: the breakfast of champions. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Gay groups not really satisfied about Super Bowl ad; Snickers pulls it. [AP via Findlaw]
* North Dakota, now slightly less boring, but not really, issues hemp permits. [AP via Yahoo!]
* Lower wages for women? Always. [MSNBC]
- Advertising, Anna Nicole Smith, Celebrities, Cyberlaw, Intellectual Property, Non-Sequiturs, Nude Dancing, Sex Scandals, Technology
* The only diet aid that couldn’t be accused of false advertising is heroin, so lay off Anna Nicole. What can I say, I always root for the underdog. [Yahoo! News]
* You’d think he’d be immune to this kind of alleged ridicule, having had his name his entire life. Pecker, embrace it the way I do Stellaq.com; I can’t tell you how easy it is to find dates these days. [Smoking Gun via Gawker]
* Charlize used her celebrity to peddle her mom’s crocheted scarf/poncho things (unfortunately for her mom, mainly by wearing them in Sweet November). So don’t tell me she can’t wear this luxury watch on an exclusive basis for “substantial funds.” [Courier Journal]
* He’ll still have to explain (a) the coke, (b) the 16-year-old girl, and (c) the motel. But at least dinner won’t revolve around why Daddy’s in jail. (Although it’s only a matter of time.) [Philadelphia Will Do; Bucks County Courier Times]
- 9th Circuit, Advertising, Blog Wars, Douglas Berman, Harry Pregerson, Law Professors, Orin Kerr, Sentencing Law
On Wednesday, Professor Orin Kerr sarcastically mocked — and also analytically attacked — the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Carrington v. United States (PDF). In an opinion by liberal stalwart Harry Pregerson, the court authorized resentencing in two cases from
the Mesozoic Era the 1990′s. We wrote about the decision here.
We expressed interest in hearing what sentencing guru Doug Berman would have to say about the case. And now Professor Berman has kindly obliged, in a quasi-snarky post that asks, What’s wrong with equitable Booker retroactivity in the Ninth Circuit?
Consider the gauntlet thrown down. Professors Berman and Kerr are two of the biggest crim-law bloggers around. And they kinda look alike, too. (See photos — Professor Berman at right, Professor Kerr at far right.)
Will Professor Kerr take up Professor Berman’s challenge? Might we have a blogospheric battle of the titans on our hands?
(To be sure, you have to be a bit of a sentencing law geek to appreciate this. If you are, then you might also enjoy this post by Professor Berman, Proof the guidelines are reasonable — a riff on our recent post about Justice Breyer writing the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines on Professor Charles Fried’s dining room table.)
Carrington v. United States [Volokh Conspiracy]
What’s wrong with equitable Booker retroactivity in the Ninth Circuit? [Sentencing Law and Policy]
Carrington v. United States (PDF) [Ninth Circuit via How Appealing]
Earlier: Judge Harry Pregerson Is Cruisin’ for a Bruisin’
Many of you, especially those of you about to deposit Biglaw bonus checks, will update your résumés at the start of the new year. It’s a common time to jump to a new job, or to start looking for one. In the first few weeks of 2007, expect departure memos to go around like the flu.
But what do you want to do next? Fellow law geeks, your attention please. The man with good taste in chocolate has two positions open in Texas’s Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
OSG regularly handles high-profile, politically sensitive cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. Most recently, it successfully defended the Texas redistricting plan, defended the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas capitol grounds, and resisted efforts by the International Court of Justice to order reconsideration of U.S. death penalty jurisprudence.
It also regularly participates as amicus in cases in which the State has an interest. Since 2003, OSG has filed over 50 Supreme Court briefs. And, for three years running now, in 2003, 2004, and 2005, the Texas SG’s office has won the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) award for Best Supreme Court Brief.
More details about this exciting opportunity, after the jump.
We think online advertising is fantastic. Of course, we’re biased; it’s how we pay the bills around here. For more details about how to advertise on Above the Law — which has a large, demographically desirable, and highly targeted readership — click here.
But all advertising, whether in print or online, carries risks. For example, your ad could run next to content you might not like.
In yesterday’s Non-Sequiturs, Stella Q linked to an article about a man who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 92-year-old nursing home patient. This morning, tipster Patrick sent us this message (with attached screencap):
After clicking on your link, I feel bad for the poor SOB who got paid to be in the ad at the bottom of the page:
We concur. For a guy who could do up to ten years in prison, he sure seems rather cheery.
(In case you’re curious, the ad in question is for adult and continuing education programs at LaSalle University. If you click through to the page and don’t see the ad at first, simply “refresh” your browser, and it may reappear — it’s a revolving ad.)
Man admits to fondling woman, 92 [PhillyBurbs.com]
The Most Happy Fella [Wikipedia]
- Advertising, Crime, Death Penalty, Drinking, Drugs, Eavesdropping / Wiretapping, Free Speech, Gambling / Gaming, Jury Duty, Marijuana, Morning Docket, Old People, Politics, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, War on Terror
* You have a right to a jury trial, whether you want it or not. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution via How Appealing]
* Santa’s big behind is gonna make kids want to drink beer?. [CNN]
* Now my case is at the Supreme Court, and I know why; because I got high, because I got high, because I got high… [WSJ Law Blog]
* It’s sad when otherwise good people get sucked into the seedy underbelly of the Arizona bingo scene. [MSNBC]
* Nice try, Jane, but a little too late to get your job on the Intelligence Committee back. [Jurist]
- Advertising, Books, Borat, Britney Spears, Celebrities, Edith Jones, Federalist Society, Movies, O.J. Simpson, Richard Posner, Sex, Tax Law, Vicious Infighting, Videos, Week in Review, Wesley Snipes
* Another week, another Borat lawsuit.
* Wow — it doesn’t take much to get lawyers all hot and bothered. But ATL readers were evidently untroubled.
* Merry Christmas. There will be no O.J. Simpson book.
* But no Britney sex tape, either.
* Wesley Snipes has some harsh words for the IRS. And Judge Posner does, too.
* We hung out a lot with the Federalist Society. We watched the social conservatives and the libertarians slug it out over cultural issues. And we learned that Judge Edith Jones isn’t the woman we thought she was.
We can’t say we’re surprised. The readers of ATL probably have a higher-than-average tolerance for things that push the envelope (or the bounds of good taste). But for what they’re worth, here are the results of our most recent reader poll:
Reader opinion is consistent with that of Dahlia Lithwick, who had this to say about the controversy:
Help me out here. Because I consider myself a feminist and I am always one to fetch a pail of water in the service of gender equity. But can someone please explain what it is about this particular ad that “demeans women” and undermines our success in the workplace?
Can someone help me understand why the president of the Women’s Bar Association wrote in to the publication in question, calling this ad a form of “gender discrimination”? Am I supposed to be outraged about the fact that this nearly naked woman is using her near nakedness to seduce a colleague (a trick that goes back to the first fig leaf, I believe) or that a clothing company is using the promise of uncontrollable, spontaneous workplace sex to seduce clients (a trick that goes back to the first Fig Leaf Emporium)? Not much about the ad suggests that women are disempowered, after all. This couple could be married. The man might be the woman’s secretary. He may well be billing her by the hour….
“The man might be the woman’s secretary.” An excellent point. And kinda hot, too.
Is the Jiwani ad sexist only if you approach it looking for sexism?
Earlier: The Jiwani Ad: Hot or Rot?
Controversy has erupted up in Boston over whether it was appropriate for the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly to run this racy advertisement, for Jiwani, a maker of custom-tailored suits:
Advertisements like this are a dime a dozen in Details and GQ. But in the more staid pages of a legal news publication, it drew a slew of negative reader responses. E.g., “Highly insulting,” “Puerile, tasteless, and offensive,” and “Wrong on so many levels.”
What do you think? We’re curious. Time for an ATL reader poll:
|Make Free Online Polls|