The current New Yorker has an interesting piece by Jeffrey Toobin on President Obama’s judicial picks. Toobin took part in a live chat about the piece at NewYorker.com right now earlier today if you’re interested. (Try not to crash their website.).

UPDATE: The chat’s quite interesting. Toobin reveals why he likes Justice Souter best and answers this young wannabe judge’s question:

11:31 Guest: I’m a 25 year old law student, I want to be a judge, and my roommate smokes pot. How worried should I be? Do you think people will still care when I’m older?

11:32 Jeffrey Toobin: Don’t inhale! I’m kidding. I don’t think it will make a bit of difference. Our president has more or less admitted he was a pretty big pothead in his day, and it’s been a non-issue. Certainly the fact that your roommate smokes — not you — is irrelevant.

Toobin’s piece is available online to non-subscribers here. If you don’t feel like clicking through seven pages, here’s the ATL reader’s digest version:

We know many lawyers who agonize over the New Yorker magazine’s weekly caption contest, desperately hoping to come up with a gnomic, witty caption worthy of selection. But we know of only one lawyer who has managed to come up with a winning caption three times. Let us introduce you to Larry Wood, an attorney at the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago.

Wood, who also teaches a housing and poverty law class at the University of Chicago, has won the weekly contest more often than anyone else. (A slight technicality: A man by the name of Carl Gable has won three times, but one of those was the New Yorker’s annual contest, which has since been replaced by the weekly contests.)

Out of 38 submissions in the four-year history of the contest, Wood’s made it to the finals three times. That’s mighty impressive, given that he’s competing against at least 5,000 other caption entries each week, reports Steve Johnson of the Chicago Tribune. So how’d he do it? Here’s what he told us on the phone this morning:

Short is better. Incorporate everything that’s in the cartoon. In one cartoon I was working with, there was a dolphin and a panhandler. So I thought of all the cliches I could think of about dolphins and about panhandlers. Dolphins are extremely intelligent, etc. Then I came up with the caption that won. My colleagues thought it was a mean-spirited joke for a poverty lawyer to make.

Maybe lawyers have advantages in the caption contests. As one friend of ours noted in response to Wood’s advice, “incorporating all the elements into your answer is actually a skill lawyers are supposed to use in their bar exam essays (and law school tort exams).”

Check out Wood’s winners, including the controversial caption, after the jump.

Everyone’s a-twitter about Jeffrey Toobin’s profile of Chief Justice John Roberts in this week’s New Yorker. And with good reason. We’re not sure whether the title of the profile, “No More Mr. Nice Guy,” is meant to describe Roberts or Toobin.

We’re sure you’re familiar with Toobin, the ubiquitous legal analyst whose resume includes gigs with CNN and ABC, as well a Harvard Law School degree, a stint as an assistant U.S. attorney, time on the Oliver North trial, a Second Circuit clerkship, and many books, including The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. And he’s not yet 50 years old (though he’ll be 49 on Thursday, according to Wikipedia).

But back to Roberts. He gets a fairly harsh appraisal in the profile, coming across as a political stooge:

After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

Toobin does not appear to be a fan of the Roberts Court. More on the elephant in the courtroom, after the jump.

It’s The New Yorker cover heard round the world. (Seriously, they’re even talking about it in Hong Kong.)

The magazine is famous for its cartoon covers. This week’s cover, at right, has the Obamas in the White House. Michelle Obama, with an afro and combat gear, fist bumps Barack Obama, in Muslim attire, while an American flag burns in the fireplace, underneath a portrait of Osama bin Laden. Yeah, basically hilariously extreme.

(Lest you think we’re getting into political coverage here at ATL, we’ll point out that both Obamas are lawyers and HLS grads.)

Obama’s campaign is not amused, calling the cover “tasteless and offensive.” The New Yorker’s editor, David Remnick, defends it on CNN:

“The idea is to attack lies and misconceptions and distortions about the Obamas and their background and their politics. We’ve heard all of this nonsense about how they’re supposedly insufficiently patriotic or soft on terrorism,” the The New Yorker editor said.

“That somehow the fist bump is something that it’s not. And we try to put all of these images in one cover, and to satirize and shine a really harsh light on something that could be incredibly damaging.”

We thought identity humor was okay. If you’re a woman, you can make fun of women. If you’re gay, you can make fun of gays. So if you’re a left-leaning news mag, can’t you make fun of the leading liberal candidate?

The New York Times did an article on the difficulties late-night comics are having coming up with Obama jokes. The conclusion seems to be that he’s just too perfect.

We’re curious to hear what you think of the cover in the comments.

P.S. Wunderful Wurld offers this revised patriotic version of the New Yorker cover, which we found fairly amusing: an I Am Legend movie poster knock-off, with Obama standing in for Will Smith.

New Yorker editor defends controversial Obama cover [CNN]
Want Obama in a Punch Line? First, Find a Joke [New York Times]

If you’re a judiciary junkie who used to read Underneath Their Robes, the judicial news and gossip site that was our first foray into blogging, you may be mildly amused by this strange piece of spam.

Jeffrey Toobin — legal affairs writer for the New Yorker and author of The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, one of our favorite books in 2007 — forwarded the rather bizarre email to us yesterday. Check it out, after the jump.

* Donald Trump gives on-the-record comments to a blawg (albeit an MSM-affiliated one). The man is a total media whore. But he’s the little brother of a certain fabulous Third Circuit judge, so we forgive him. [WSJ Law Blog]

(Check out the photos at right. We see a definite family resemblance. Which may or may not be a good thing.)

* Speaking of siblings, our big brother wonders: “Do we smell a Jeff Skilling comeback in the air?” And hits the nail on the head with respect to Malcolm Gladwell, too. [DealBreaker]

* The start of a new year is a perfect time for blogospheric navel-gazing reflections upon the future of law-related blogging. [Opinio Juris via Volokh Conspiracy]

* As well as New Year’s resolutions. [Nasty, Brutish & Short; Jeremy Blachman; Althouse]

* And raucous law blogger parties. Woo-hoo! [Concurring Opinions; PrawfsBlawg]

Here’s another excellent article from Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. It’s about the role played by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), outgoing chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with respect to the recent habeas corpus legislation (aka the Military Commissions Act of 2006).

If you’re confused about the controversy over this legislation, which has wound its way through both the federal courts and the Senate chamber, the article is well worth your time. It explains recent developments in this complex area of law with commendable clarity.

And it also contains fun bits of color and gossip. We collect a few highlights, after the jump.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer demonstrates his hidden talent for pantomime, as Jeffrey Toobin looks on admiringly. (Photo by Startraks.)

This is our final post about Justice Stephen Breyer’s recent appearance at the New Yorker Festival. Prior posts are available here, here, here, and here.

We highlight some of the more interesting or amusing remarks by Justice Breyer, after the jump.

“Nino, you wanna piece of me?” Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Jeffrey Toobin, at the New Yorker Festival. Photo by Startraks.

Somewhat late, but better late than never: part one of the more detailed account that we promised you of Justice Stephen Breyer’s interview with Jeffrey Toobin, at the New Yorker Festival last weekend.

The setting of the interview was impressive. The Celeste Bartos Forum at the New York Public Library is a grand, high-ceilinged room, with marble and dark wood trim gracing the walls. Justice Breyer and Jeff Toobin sat on two directors’ chairs on the small, elevated stage at the front of the room, with a gold and brown backdrop behind them.

Before the talk started, one could feel the buzz of anticipation in the room. Our knees were trembling with anticipation, and our heart was beating almost audibly. Supreme Court justices make us weak! (And apparently we’re not alone. Festival publicist Kimberly Burns informed us that the Breyer/Toobin talk sold out on Ticketmaster in three minutes — like a rock concert.)

More notes, after the jump.

Actually, no, we didn’t ask him that. But the question we did pose was just about as goofy. It felt sort of like Punk’d: Supreme Court Edition.

First, some background. As previously discussed, this past weekend we attended Jeffrey Toobin’s interview of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, part of the New Yorker Festival. It was an interesting talk, even if it may not have met our (perhaps unrealistic) expectations.

We may write even more about the interview later (because it did go on for about an hour and a half). For now, though, we’ll share with you what happened when we got up during the Q-and-A session and posed a question to Justice Stephen Breyer.

Check it out, after the jump.

Yesterday afternoon, we attended a delightful event at the New Yorker Festival: an interview of The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, conducted by David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker. Stewart was in fine form, and he “stopped the show” several times, reducing the audience to laughter so loud they had to pause before continuing. Several notable folks, including Maureen Dowd and screenwriter Paul Haggis (winner of last year’s Oscar for “Crash”), were in the audience.

Some good quips from Stewart (which we paraphrase, since we don’t have a transcript). On Ann Coulter:

I actually feel sorry for her. Once your career is based on denigrating 9/11 widows, what’s your second act? Unless you dig up Mother Teresa and stick a dildo in her eye, nothing could be more offensive.

On the Mark Foley scandal:

We do have pages on The Daily Show. I just want to make one thing clear to their parents, and to everyone else: We WILL sodomize them.

On John McCain, and the media’s general adoration for him:

You know, he has the Straight Talk Express. And he’s driving it to Bullshittown.

When the Q-and-A session began, we were the first ones to the microphone. We often ask questions at these events, but we try to (1) ask funny or interesting questions, (2) keep them brief, and (3) keep them as questions (as opposed to never-ending rants that the moderator eventually cuts off).

An account of our questions and Stewart’s responses, after the jump.

We attended several other New Yorker Festival events in addition to Justice Breyer’s talk with Jeffrey Toobin (which we discussed here and here). One of these was a fascinating panel about representations of the Mafia in popular culture, entitled TV, Movies, and the Mob.

The panel, moderated by Jeffrey Goldberg, was star-studded. It included the magnificent Lorraine Bracco, aka Dr. Jennifer Melfi of “The Sopranos”; Paul Haggis, who won the best screenplay Oscar for “Crash” (and is working on a new TV series about the criminal underworld); Harold Ramis, director and co-writer of “Analyze This” and “Analyze That”; and Frank Vincent, who plays Phil Leotardo on “The Sopranos.”

But the panelist of the greatest interest to us was a lawyer: Gerald Shargel, one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the country. Shargel has represented numerous high-profile defendants, including the Mafia boss John Gotti and various members of the Gambino family. As Goldberg drily described Shargel during the introductions: “He’s the sort of lawyer you got to when you have BIG problems. Not just regular-size problems….”

A more detailed discussion of the panel, after the jump.

We’re about to head to dinner, so we’ll write more about this later. For now, from Bryant Park — free wireless! — here’s a quick, rushed, half-baked commentary on Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s interview with Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker Festival.

It’s always thrilling to see a Supreme Court justice in the flesh. But, truth be told, we were a little disappointed (and not because SGB dodged our question during the Q-and-A with a rambling hypothetical about green roof tiles). On the whole, Justice Breyer was a bit too tame in his remarks to be a great interviewee.

It wasn’t Jeff Toobin’s fault; Toobin tried to bring Justice Breyer out of his shell (as he did with Edie Falco, who was a brilliant interviewee at last year’s Festival). But Justice Breyer was, on the whole, too restrained and insufficiently gossipy.

Justice Breyer was obviously precluded from talking about substantive legal issues (which several audience made futile attempts to get him to do). So he should have offered up lots of color and dish: harmless random details about life as a SCOTUS justice, tons of funny stories. Sadly, he didn’t do much of that; a little, but not enough.

What did he do? He offered up lots of vague generalities about the role of the courts in a democracy. If you’ve sat through one of Justice Breyer’s civics lectures on C-SPAN, or through the first week of a Con Law course, you’ve heard this all before. A telling refrain that preceded many of his remarks: “As I tell my students” (i.e., the elementary and high schoolers he gives civics lessons to).

The best interviewees are confessional. You feel like they’re at dinner with a close friend (the interviewer), and you’re a fly on the wall, hearing all sorts of juicy stuff you really shouldn’t be hearing. But everything Justice Breyer said today he could have said — and probably has already said — on C-SPAN, or in his book, Active Liberty.

You’re about to complain: “C’mon, how could you expect much fun? The man is a sitting Supreme Court justice, for crying out loud!”

Our response: There are ways to entertain, enrage, or engage your audience, even if you’re a federal judge, without violating ethical precepts. Every time Justice Scalia makes a public appearance, for example, there’s an article in the newspaper the next day about some fun, wacky, or thought-provoking remark he made.

Judge Alex Kozinski and Judge Richard Posner are the same way. They are colorful characters, prolific writers and public speakers. They make us laugh, and they make us think, but without crossing the line into impropriety.

Unfortunately, Justice Breyer shied too far away from that line in his appearance today. We’ll blog about the highlights of what he did say later (and don’t get us wrong; there were a number of funny moments and interesting anecdotes). But on the whole, for those of you who couldn’t get tickets (it sold out in three minutes), you didn’t miss as much as you might think.

Another weekend, another out-of-town excursion. In a few hours, we’re heading back up to the Big Apple, to attend events at the New Yorker Festival. A brief description of the Festival, from its website:

The New Yorker Festival returns for its seventh year, from October 6th through October 8th, in a celebratory weekend of public discourse on arts and ideas. The three-day schedule of events encompasses readings, musical performances, interviews, debates, and excursions around New York City.

If you happen to be attending the Festival too, please come up and say hello. We’ll be at these events:

1. Fiction Into Film

2. TV, Movies, and the Mob

3. The Honorable Stephen G. Breyer and Jeffrey Toobin

4. Master Class in Criticism: Hilton Als and Anthony Lane

5. Jon Stewart Interviewed by David Remnick

We’re especially looking forward to the appearance of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, whom we’ve never seen up close and personal.* Justice Breyer will be interviewed by Jeffrey Toobin — who, for obvious reasons, is one of our favorite legal journalists (or writers of any type, period). Last year we attended Jeff Toobin’s interview of Edie Falco, which was nothing short of brilliant — one of the best live interviews we’ve ever attended (and we’ve attended many over the years; we’re interview junkies).

Our excitement about seeing Justice Breyer has only increased since we realized, earlier today, that he looks like an older version of one of our favorite screenwriters and actors: the phenomentally talented, unfailingly hilarious Mike White, who wrote and acted in Chuck & Buck, The Good Girl, and The School of Rock (among many other films).**

Check it out. Here’s the ocular proof:

* We’ve seen all of the justices from across the SCOTUS courtroom, at oral argument (including the late Chief Justice Rehnquist and retired Justice O’Connor). But in terms of actual, formal introductions — of the handshake-and-name-exchange type — we’ve met only Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

** Chuck&Buck is one of our favorite movies of all time. We have a weakness for films focused on obsession and insanity. E.g., All About Eve, The Piano Teacher, Fatal Attraction, Monster.

The New Yorker Festival [official website]
Mike White biography [Yahoo! Movies]
Mike White I [IMDb]

Some random reading recommendations, which don’t have much to do with law. But that’s what weekends are for, right?

* Suffering from Entourage withdrawal? Read about a real-life agent dumping (by Jim Carrey). [Defamer]

* Suffering from Project Runway withdrawal, since there was no new episode this week? Get your hands on the New Yorker’s fantastic fashion issue. The profile of Diane von Furstenberg — by Larissa MacFarquhar, who once profiled Judge Richard Posner — is especially worthwhile. So is Andrea Lee’s article about high-end handbags (“The Bag Lady”). [New Yorker (table of contents; most articles not online)]

* Suffering from Harriet Miers withdrawal? Head over to the blog of Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston. Then run a search (ctrl-F) for “LOL.” [Cardinal Seán’s Blog via New York Times]