Supreme Court

Non-Sequiturs: 05.24.13

By

Ed. note: Above the Law will not be publishing on Monday, May 27, in observance of the Memorial Day holiday.

* Manhattan Justice Paul Wooten has ordered CBS to produce all emails between it and the Brooklyn DA’s office concerning “Brooklyn D.A.” and ordered a hearing this afternoon. CBS attorneys are irritated. Now they know how everyone feels when they have to watch Two and a Half Men. [WiseLaw NY]

* Lois Lerner, the embattled IRS supervisor at the heart of the recent scandal, invoked the Fifth Amendment in her congressional hearing, but in a way that may open the door to contempt. Ironically, maintaining innocence while invoking the Fifth opens one up to “heightened scrutiny.” As noted in Morning Docket, she’s been put on administrative leave. [Simple Justice]

* T.J. Duane of Lateral Link was named one of the 17 Stanford business students who is going to change the world. Duane is working on technology to “provid[e] solo and boutique attorneys the benefits without the drawbacks of big law.” That’s much better than my proposal to provide solo and boutique attorneys the drawbacks without the benefits of big law, which is just a device that passive-aggressively second-guesses every decision a lawyer makes. [Business Insider]

* The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has asked the Supreme Court to uphold the D.C. Circuit’s decision holding Obama’s NLRB recess appointments unconstitutional because the appointments caused “major confusion for both employers and employees alike.” They’ve got a point. Not having a quorum on the NLRB because the Senate refuses to confirm anyone and plays parliamentary games does provide certainty… the certainty that the NLRB cannot function and its a free-for-all against workers. [Free Enterprise]

* Law school applications are down, but not as drastically as expected. [Faculty Lounge]

* In any event, law schools are facing an economic reckoning dubbed “Peak Law School.” [Lawyers, Guns & Money]

* A new CBO report analyzes the impact of a carbon tax, in case you’re preparing to start papering cap-and-trade deals. [Breaking Energy]

* Do potential clients really care about social media? I “Like” this story. [Associate's Mind]

* Courtesy of the ABA Journal, you can check out the swag Chief Justice Roberts and Eric Holder got from foreign nations in 2010 after the jump…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Non-Sequiturs: 05.24.13″

2 Comments

Righteous Indignation: Conservatives Benchslapping Conservatives

By

Ed. note: This is the latest installment of Righteous Indignation, our new column for conservative-minded lawyers.

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided City of Arlington v. FCC. The question before SCOTUS was whether courts must defer to a federal regulatory agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity even when that ambiguity involves the scope of the agency’s authority — its own jurisdiction.

Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, holding that even in cases such as this one, agencies are entitled to the usual deference established in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. — aka Chevron deference. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito.

The outcome of City of Arlington should be noteworthy to Court watchers — and conservatives in particular — for several reasons. First, the Scalia-Roberts split quiets the simplistic refrain that SCOTUS decides cases down rigid liberal-conservative lines. Second, it highlights an ongoing debate among conservative members of the Court about fundamental issues concerning the separation of powers and constitutional governance. Third, the Scalia and Roberts opinions demonstrate that, far from reserving their barbs for the left, conservatives can be pretty darn snarky amongst themselves.

So, let’s have a closer look….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Righteous Indignation: Conservatives Benchslapping Conservatives”

10 Comments

Non-Sequiturs: 05.22.13

By

* In the Western District of Arkansas, judges have to forfeit judicial immunity to go to the bathroom. So if you want to sue a judge, you need to catch them when their pants are literally down. [Hercules and the Umpire]

* Bowman v. Monsanto… in GIFs! [EffYeahSCOTUS]

* Cooley boy makes good! President Obama nominated Christopher Thomas, a Cooley Law School grad and professor, to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. [White House]

* A judge threw out the fine against a New York artist as unconstitutionally harsh. The artist took an antenna from the trash and cops impounded his car and fined him $2,000. [Thompson Reuters News & Insight]

* The Ninth Circuit struck down Arizona’s “Fetal Pain” Abortion Ban. Sounds like a viable decision. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Work/life balance is when lawyers with kids throw their childless colleagues under a bus. [Slate]

* If you’re reading transcripts of old trials and think the lawyers of yesteryear were smarter, you’re probably right. Western civilization has gotten dumber since the nineteenth century. The reason is summarized by the video after the jump….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Non-Sequiturs: 05.22.13″

2 Comments

Which Supreme Court Justice Are You?

By

Everyone smile and say “certiorari”!

One of our favorite legal blogs is Noncuratlex.com, authored by Professor Kyle Graham of Santa Clara Law. The site is extremely funny and insightful, especially if you’re a legal nerd (we plead guilty), and we link to it regularly.

Professor Graham shares a number of our interests, such as legally themed vanity license plates. And, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Which SCOTUS justice would you be? Find out by taking the Noncuratlex.com personality quiz….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Which Supreme Court Justice Are You?”

17 Comments

Legislative Prayer: Should We Really Care?

By

Even the liberals look okay with the Red Mass,

I believe President Jed Bartlett explained legislative prayer best during the Red Mass episode. When Charlie asked why it’s okay to have a mass to celebrate the beginning of the Supreme Court’s terms, Barlett said, “And so how isn’t it a Constitutional issue? It is, but sometimes you say, ‘Big deal.’ It was the intention not to have a national religion, not to have anyone’s religious views imposed on anyone else, and not to have the government encourage a national display of piety as a substitute for real action.”

I think that’s basically right. I think prayer in schools is an unconstitutional indoctrination into religion for kids who are required by law to be there. I think making marriage laws based on Leviticus is bigoted and stupid. But if grown-ass adults want to have a prayer before they start legislating, I say “big deal.”

And I thought “big deal” was pretty well established law. So like everybody else, I was a little surprised to see that the Supreme Court granted cert in Greece v. Galloway, a case involving legislative prayer.

Maybe SCOTUS just wants to smack around the Second Circuit?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Legislative Prayer: Should We Really Care?”

15 Comments

Yes, It Is Worth Making A Federal Case Over Angelina Jolie’s Boobs

By

This morning, the New York Times published an op-ed by actress Angelina Jolie discussing her decision to get a preventative double mastectomy.

Jolie is being hailed as an inspiration for coming forward with this story, which marks an amazing turn-around for a woman who used to make out with her brother and carry vials of her then-husband’s blood around her neck.

The actress decided to take the preventative measure after genetic testing determined that she had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer.

Now, Jolie is a movie star married to another movie star, so the decision to undergo an expensive procedure did not deter her like it will many women in the United States.

Not the mastectomy. Insurance usually covers that if the patient presents such risks. No, the expensive procedure is the initial genetic testing. And the Supreme Court might be able to do something about that in the next couple of months…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Yes, It Is Worth Making A Federal Case Over Angelina Jolie’s Boobs”

20 Comments

Non-Sequiturs: 05.13.13

By

* Joseph Rakofsky has lost his case against, well basically everyone. Including ATL. [Popehat]

* EDNY Judge Edward Korman is earning accolades for his sassiness. [Jezebel]

* The Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Monsanto case. Reading the decision is not exhausting. Get it? [Patently-O]

* Happy Mother’s Day from Kobe Bryant! Black Mamba takes his mom to court. [Legal Blitz]

* Sammy Hagar can’t be held liable for defaming a woman. He also can’t drive 55. [Courthouse News Service]

* Stealing $100 worth of cigarettes may seem crazy, but $100 worth of cigarettes in Texas would net something like $480,000 in New York City. [Legal Juice]

* Intellectual property run amok. And it doesn’t involve Prenda in any way! [Dealbreaker]

* As we reported before, being a divorce lawyer is not just for nailing your clients anymore. [Jezebel]

1 Comment

The Supreme Court Rules Over Black People, It Doesn’t See Or Listen To Them

By

Can you imagine only having to listen to black people for 11 minutes for your entire year?

At what point do the Supreme Court’s views on racial equality and tolerance become entirely illegitimate?

At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if the only black people the nine justices know are characters they’ve seen in Tyler Perry movies. Sorry… characters the justices have seen in previews for Tyler Perry movies.

The Huffington Post has a damning report on the number of minorities who have even had the opportunity to argue in front of the Supreme Court this Term. It’s embarrassing. But in a couple of days or weeks, these nine people are going to presume to tell me whether or not we’ve achieved enough racial equality to do away with affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act?

It’s unbelievable. It’s unbelievable that these nine people think there is any person of color who should respect them worth a damn…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The Supreme Court Rules Over Black People, It Doesn’t See Or Listen To Them”

103 Comments

Justice Ginsburg: A ‘Great Diva,’ or Milli Vanilli?

By

My expertise to address this topic may not be clear. For truth be told, I am ill-equipped to break out in song. My grade school music teacher labeled me a sparrow, not a robin, and instructed me to just mouth the words. Still, in my dreams I can be a great diva.

– Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking on the subject of law and opera in a recent appearance at DePaul University.

(More about RBG’s remarks, after the jump.)

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Justice Ginsburg: A ‘Great Diva,’ or Milli Vanilli?”

4 Comments

The Lay Response to Judge Judy’s ‘Appointment’ to the Supreme Court

By

Judge Judy… she’s gangsta. You gotta give her that. That’s a plus.

– a man on the street in response to a question — “What do you think about Obama’s decision to appoint Judge Judy Sheindlin to the Supreme Court?” — posed by a reporter from the Jimmy Kimmel Live show.

(Keep reading to see some of the other entertaining answers people gave in response to this question, and to watch the ridiculous clip from Jimmy Kimmel Live.)

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The Lay Response to Judge Judy’s ‘Appointment’ to the Supreme Court”

10 Comments
Page 1 of 9312345...93