* Former ATL guest blogger Ted Frank — of Overlawyered, Point of Law, and Table 42 fame — will be on C-SPAN today, at 2 PM (Eastern time). He’ll be discussing federal regulatory action and the Roberts Court. [C-SPAN]
* If you haven’t done so already, add the excellent JD Bliss to your RSS reader or blogroll. And not just ’cause we were recently interviewed by them. [JDBliss: Balancing Life and the Law]
* The music video for Beyonce’s “Irreplaceable” is not to be missed. The visual contrast between “urbane” Beyonce, with her meticulous make-up and perfectly straight hair, and “feral” Beyonce, drenched by a gushing fire hydrant, is jaw-dropping. And the image of her wet hand, snaking deliciously across her black-leather-swathed derrière, is arresting and indelible. WOW!!! [YouTube]
(We can’t wait to see Beyonce in Dreamgirls, directed by Bill Condon — a graduate of our alma mater, just like Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.)
Blogging
- Beyonce, Blogging, Celebrities, Movies, Music, Shameless Plugs, Supreme Court, Ted Frank, Television, Videos
A Trio of Shamless Plugs
By David Lat
* I didn’t realize that it has been at least four years since people have been writing for nothing but personal satisfaction. Well, Happy Birthday, Legal Reader! [Legal Reader]
* I haven’t made up my mind regarding voter irrationality, but I know this is why I hate politics (and why those swayed to vote by Rock the Vote are perhaps the only ones who really should stay home tomorrow). [Cato Unbound via Marginal Revolution]
* Who saw Borat this weekend? You’d think that everyone would be in on the joke by now, but apparently not. A human rights group is suing Sacha Baron Cohen himself, and a woman says she got fired because of his antics. Let’s hope this guy doesn’t sue. [USA Today: On Deadline]
* Another day, another political/religious sex scandal offender. Unfortunately, being a hypocrite isn’t illegal, but what slogan would you want to see on his t-shirt anyway? [AP via Herald Tribune]

Here’s the most important part of this post: If you’re a reader of the most excellent Crescat Sententia, please note that IT HAS MOVED.
The new, correct address is http://www.crescatsententia.net/. If you go to the old address, you’ll see what looks exactly like the old blog. But that is NOT the Crescat Sententia blog.
Here’s the backstory, from Will Baude:
In September, without my knowledge or consent, our old domain was purchased by a Search Engine Optimization firm that intends to make money by either reselling the domain for a pretty penny to somebody greedy for its pagerank, or by using that pagerank to sell links to sites eager to trick Google. The webpage up there now is not this blog (it’s an old cache that he will have to take down soon), and this blog is the current and future home of crescat.
Because of the switcheroo, I can’t post a notice over there telling everybody where we’ve gone, so we’re reliant on people updating their blogrolls, and on word of mouth. With your help, hopefully we can minimize the disruption this has already caused.
I thought about taking this as a sign that it was time to turn in and give up, but I think this whole episode was a vindication of some principle like loss aversion. I’m not ready to go yet, and when I am, it will be on other terms.
Please, please, spread the word. WWW.CRESCATSENTENTIA.NET.
When Will Baude emailed the owner of the company that acquired his domain name, he was told to take a hike. The owner expressed a willingness to sell the domain name back to Will — for an exorbitant, extortionate price.
Those of you who blog probably realize what a total nightmare this is. Our sympathies go out to our blogging brethren at Crescat.
There’s some great discussion of this issue over at Concurring Opinions (incl. the comments). See here, by Dan Solove, and here, by Kaimipono Wenger.
Moral of the Story: Website owners and bloggers, remember to renew your domain names — early and often.*
* With Christmas approaching, here’s an ATL holiday shopping tip: Domain names make great gifts. The person you purchase the domain name for may not use it immediately. But it’s nice for them to know that, should they ever want to start up a blog, personal website, or business website, their domain name is reserved for them.
(Yeah, we’re dorks — we bought our parents their domain names for Mother’s Day and Father’s Day this year.)
The Remains of Crescat [CrescatSententia.net]
Quote of the Day [CrescatSententia.net]
Crescat Sententia’s Exploited Domain Name [Concurring Opinions]
Slimy SEO’s invade the Blawgosphere (Part II) [Concurring Opinions]
- Announcements, Aquagirl, Biglaw, Blogging, Cleary Gottlieb, Exercise, Nude Dancing, Summer Associates
Scuttlebutt Central: Legal Gossip Blogs
By David Lat
If you haven’t already done so, we recommend that you read this article (and not just ’cause we’re featured in it). It’s entitled Scuttlebutt Central, by Stephanie Francis Ward, and it’s from the November 2006 issue of the ABA Journal.
The piece is a fun and interesting read; check it out for yourself. We’ll just comment on one passage that caught our eye:
A Washington, D.C., corporate associate who asked to remain anonymous admits to reading legal gossip blogs daily — a habit he says isn’t unusual among his peers.
“There’s an allure of some of these stories — like the summer associate in New York who took off her clothes and jumped into the Hudson River — so there’s sort of a universal appeal,” he says.
Allow us to supplement the record. According to various reports, the summer associate in question was at the venerable firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton. The incident took place at a charity benefit held at the Chelsea Piers sports and entertainment complex. It turned out to be a fairly big deal because the SA had to be fished out of the river (either by the Coast Guard or an NYPD police boat).
We’re not sure if she ended up getting an offer. But given what a summer associate has to do NOT to get an offer — e.g., first- or second-degree murder (manslaughter, no big deal) — we wouldn’t be surprised if she did.
More juicy details here and here.
Scuttlebutt Central: Legal gossip blogs appeal to a nation of associates hungry for the local scoop [ABA Journal]
Summer Stories [What's Up With Wake Law?]
Summer Associates [CU bLAWg]
* If this were illegal, then Hollywood would have more criminals than Compton. But Vincent Gallo claims he has never had sexual relations with this woman girl. He also uses the word “Negro.” Your call. [New York Post]
* Ever the gentleman, Cheney tries to compensate for Uglygate in a big way. He’s also been thinking about Barack McDreamy. [Los Angeles Times]
* And people say that the media is biased. Michael Moore has a worthy successor. By the way, in case it’s not crystal clear, I mean “worthy” in a sarcastic way, yes I do. [Reuters via All Media News]
* Keep this Artist/Activist/Anarchist/Archivist’s ass in jail. He sounds like a tool anyway. [NPR]
* $15.5 million buys a lot of bling. [SOHH.com]
Over the weekend, we drew your attention to an interesting article from the Legal Times, written by Nathan Carlile. We found it interesting because, well, it was mainly about us and ATL. We also described it as “exhaustively reported, colorfully written, and a genuine pleasure to read.”
We mentioned we had a few “quibbles” (which should not be viewed as detracting from the overall excellence of the piece). Some of you expressed curiosity about said quibbles.
For those of you who might be interested, the Legal Times piece, along with our running commentary, appears after the jump. But if you’re not interested, simply skip this post; for your convenience, we’ve placed the bulk of this post AFTER the jump. To expose your eyeballs to this, you must affirmatively elect to do so. Thanks.
Ann Althouse raises a potential quibble with the above quip, made by Justice Antonin Scalia in a public appearance this past weekend. She writes:
It would be better to say “not everything that is stupid is unconstitutional.” “Everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional” can be read to mean that every stupid thing is constitutional, when plenty of stupid things are unconstitutional. I know there’s some argument over whether this should actually be considered a usage error. The argument that it’s not usually brings up Shakespeare’s “All that glisters is not gold.” Why didn’t he write “Not all that glisters is gold”?
Howard Bashman criticizes Professor Althouse for engaging in “untoward nitpicking on the internet.” But it seems to us that Althouse, after raising this possible ambiguity, ultimately comes down on the same side as Bashman:
[F]orget about this particular language nicety, I’d say. I’m rather glad to myself, since I was personally needled for years by someone who was inordinately vigilant on this usage point.
To support her position that this is much ado about nothing, Althouse cites Fowler. And as we’ve pointed out in these pages, Justice Scalia is a devout follower of Fowler.
We say: Everything is illuminated that is not unilluminated. Including the dispute over this issue of usage.
“It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional.” [Althouse]
Does “Everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional” equal “Every stupid thing is constitutional”? [How Appealing]
Earlier: The Eyes of the Law: A Legitimate Use of “Scalito”
The “S” Clash: Scalia’s Position Explained
Read This Only If You’re a Grammar Nerd
If you’re sick and tired of reading about blogs, bloggers, and blogging, then just skip this post.
But if you enjoy or take interest in such meta-coverage, then this article, by Nathan Carlile of the Legal Times, should be right up your alley. It’s exhaustively reported, colorfully written, and a genuine pleasure to read. Our favorite part: the subheadings, which are simply brilliant.
(We have a few little quibbles, but we won’t burden you with them here.)
Happy Reading!
David Lat Takes on the Legal World One Post at a Time: Blogger and Ex-Lawyer Takes No Prisoners
[Legal Times]



