Washington Post

Does George Will look like the protector of Black America to you?

People who think giving charity to those less fortunate also gives them the right to direct the personal choices of those receiving the charity are some of the worst people on the planet. The biggest offenders are religious organizations: “Ooh, here’s some food. Yes. You like food, don’t you? I bet you’re hungry — I can tell ’cause I can see your ribs. Well, it’s all you can eat in here… first, just say you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. SAY IT. Wonderful. Bon appétit!”

Organizations do it all the time, but there are plenty of individuals who also think giving a guy a buck gives them the right to tell the recipient how to spend the money. This behavior is the worst because it takes what should be a generous gesture (giving somebody money) and turns it into a cheap way to make a BS point about your moral superiority (“If this man did just one thing more like me, he wouldn’t have to beg for my scraps.”).

If you want to help, help. But don’t use “helping” as an excuse to further some ridiculous personal agenda. You’ll just look like an idiot. You’ll just look like George Will prancing around the pages of the Washington Post trying to act like he is against affirmative action because he suddenly wants the Supreme Court to step up to the plate and “help” black people….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “George Will’s Disingenuous Idea on How SCOTUS Can Help Black People”

It has been a while since I took the S.A.T, but here goes. Nancy Grace: Casey Anthony Verdict; Valerie Katz: ________.

A. Ramona Singer Pinot Grigio;
B. Biglaw Spring Bonuses;
C. Closed Compensation Model in Small Firms;
D. All of the above;
E. None of the above.

Correct Answer: C. I, like Ms. Grace about the Tot-Mom verdict, am full of rage about closed compensation models in small firms.

A “closed compensation” model is defined as one “where partners in a firm do not know how much the others earn. While partners generally have a sense of how compensation is determined, they will not be party to the outcome by which individual compensation is arrived at.” An “open compensation” model, by contrast, is “one where individual partner compensation is known by all partners of the firm.”

A recent study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that almost half of all workers in the U.S. “are either contractually forbidden or strongly discouraged from discussing their pay with their colleagues.” And, 66.7% of the respondents to my salary survey reported that they did not know the compensation that other associates earn.

Why does this make me think “the devil is dancing?” Find out after the jump….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Size Matters: Time To Get All Nancy Grace On You”

Potential clients keep contacting me, almost daily. I’m going to have to take my number off our Web site.

– Maryland lawyer Daniel Whitney of Whitney & Bogris, aka “the bedbug attorney,” in an interview with the Washington Post.


The comely Cate has her father's smile.

No, she didn’t cheat on a cancer-stricken spouse through an affair with a trashy “videographer”; Cate Edwards, the daughter of John and Elizabeth Edwards, isn’t married. Rather, the 28-year-old Harvard Law graduate has become a plaintiffs’ lawyer, like her father before her.

As reported today in the Washington Post’s Reliable Source column, Edwards recently became an associate with Sanford Wittels & Heisler, a boutique class-action litigation firm with offices in New York, D.C., and San Francisco. Her bio on the firm website, which lists her as Catharine E. Edwards, mentions that she’s a member of the Virginia bar, with an application to the D.C. bar pending.

It also reveals that she previously served as a law clerk to a federal judge. For whom did Cate Edwards clerk?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Musical Chairs: Cate Edwards Follows in Her Father’s Footsteps”

October is typically a prime wedding month, yet we’ve seen a precipitous and unaccountable prestige drop-off in the NYT over the past couple of weeks. You know it’s lean times when the only Ivy in the batch is UPenn, which has a big-time football program and therefore can’t be academically serious.

Also, witness this rare occurrence: a groom so unprestigious that the NYT can’t even bring itself to befoul its pages with his educational credentials! (LEWW found them here.)

But never fear, we’ve managed to find some wheat among the chaff:

Marisa Katz and Adam Bellack

Peyton McNutt and Elizabeth Healey

Kuang Chiang and Adam Supple

More on these couples, plus our comprehensive list of all the legal-eagle weddings, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: Firm Yet Supple”

[W]ouldn’t we be perturbed if a justice decided that a little rhinestone trim along the sleeves would be quite nice? Or what if a justice decided that a mink collar would be quite lovely in the winter?

Robin Givhan, fashion critic of the Washington Post, opining on Supreme Court fashion.

Last month, the employee cafe in the D.C. office of Skadden was briefly closed for health code violations. Meanwhile, across town, the Supreme Court cafeteria continues to operate — even though some apparently think it should be struck down like an errant statute.

On what grounds? For serving fare that violates evolving standards of decency. That seems to be the view of a reporter from the Washington Post (via Josh Blackman):

This food should be unconstitutional, we agreed, as my two companions and I sat in the court’s sparsely populated dining area, examining the wan offerings we’d just received.

The restaurant review is part of the WaPo’s ongoing review of federal government cafeterias. Based on the harsh write-up for Cafe Scotus, it sounds like the judiciary is — with apologies to Alexander Bickel — the most dangerous branch.

So, what are some of the specific dishes panned by the Post?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Eating at the Supreme Court Cafeteria: A Cruel and Unusual Punishment?”

As we noted yesterday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, on track to be the newest justice of the Supreme Court, apparently hasn’t been bitten by the “Twilight” movies. When Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) tried to get Kagan to weigh in on the case of Edward v. Jacob, Kagan declined — a little forcefully. This won’t help White House efforts to depict the Divine Miss K as a girly girl.

But perhaps other legal types have a weakness for the series of vampire romance films. On Wednesday, the Washington Post had an article on the hard-core “Twilight” fans who came out in force for Tuesday night, post-12 a.m. screenings. Reports the Post:

After “Eclipse” was over, moviegoers gave it mixed reviews.

“It was a lot more frustrating than I thought it was going to be, ” said Bill Murray, 31.

“I thought it was fantastic,” said Gus Golden, 33. “It had a little bit in it for everyone.”

It seemed odd to find thirtysomething men at the midnight screening of a film aimed at teenage girls. To be sure, Robert Pattinson is ridiculously hot, and Taylor Lautner is quite the butterface (butHISface?), with abs that should be illegal under the Model Penal Code (hehe — penal). But then a little bird told us: “Gus Golden and Bill Murray are both rising 3L’s at Georgetown University Law Center.” And suddenly it all made sense.

The “Twilight” films are supposed to be juvenile and insubstantial — not typical cinematic fare for lawyers and law students. But before we started on a post heaping scorn upon these GULC students, and cracking jokes about how a fall from the so-called “T14″ is imminent, we decided to do some digging….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Do Georgetown Law Students ♥ Twilight?”

In his speaking tours around the country, Clarence Thomas has a lot to say — sometimes critical things to say, about his fellow justices’ approach to oral argument and the lack of alma mater diversity among the Court’s clerks, for example.

But when Thomas is back at One First Street, sitting on the bench, he gets quiet. Very quiet. He hasn’t spoken a word during oral argument in over four years. He’s said before that it’s because he doesn’t see the point in badgering the attorneys arguing before the High Court. But we think there may be another reason: he hates his job. He’s suggested it himself.

In the Washington Post, we set forth a proposal for him: step down. And seek the Republican presidential nomination for 2012.

A bit about our reasoning, and a reader poll, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Should Clarence Thomas Run for President in 2012?”

The government acknowledged that a link exists between autism and the routine vaccines which one girl from Georgia was given as a child:

The cases are before a special “vaccine court” that doles out cash from a fund Congress set up to pay people injured by vaccines and to protect makers from damages as a way to help ensure an adequate vaccine supply. The burden of proof is lighter than in a traditional court, and is based on a preponderance of evidence. Since the fund started in 1988, it has paid roughly 950 claims _ none for autism.

Although the government didn’t say that the vaccines cause autism, they did concede that, in this single case, the vaccines worsened the girl’s existing condition and caused her to develop symptoms of autism.

We’re wondering about this “special ‘vaccine court.’ To our readers: what are some other interesting cases in which “special courts” were set up for a specific type of claim (not military tribunals; that’s too obvious)?

UPDATE: We’re asking about interesting cases when “special courts” set up for strange or unorthodox reasons.

Government Concedes Vaccine Injury Case [WaPo]

Page 2 of 212