Ed. note: Yesterday's guest post about how Barack Obama's tax plan might affect Biglaw associates, authored by Ted Frank, generated a record number of comments on ATL: 564 (and counting). It also generated lots of reaction throughout the blogosphere (links collected below). So we thought we'd invite Ted to do a follow-up.

Here it is. Ted wrote it in response to the following reader email, which makes many of the arguments that surfaced in the 564+ comments. From an Obama defender:

I'm sorry, but you are losing your credibility by posting this false propaganda on Obama. Look at Obama's website. It clearly states, "Asked About Raising the Cap, Obama said, 'You Might Have the Equivalent of a Doughnut Hole'--NOT That He Would Completely Remove the Cap." Obama "has stated in various venues that ‘his inclination... has been for a 'donut' where the uncapping would take place above some threshold income level -- probably around $200,000 or $250,000' his economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said in an email. A donut would protect a certain portion of income (e.g., between $100,000 and $200,000) from the payroll tax and could be phased in over decades."

In addition, that "$34,000 paycut" in the post title is misleading. Even if all your assumptions were correct (which they weren't), the after tax pay cut under Obama is < $20,000. I love your site, but please correct this ridiculous false article before you lose all credibility.

And now, without further ado, Ted Frank.

* * * * * * * * * *
First, as I show in the spreadsheet, a $20,000 tax increase is the equivalent of a $34,000 before-tax paycut for a New York City resident, which would have the same after-tax effect. The $34,000 figure is accurate: that's just math. The Obama tax plan would have the same effect on a NYC fifth-year associate being paid market as a $34,000 paycut.

Obama has never said he will have a doughnut-hole, only that his SS tax could include a doughnut-hole. When Hillary Clinton attacked Obama at the November 15 Nevada debate for wanting to eliminate the cap, Obama didn't say that the attack was incorrect; he defended the policy because eliminating the cap would only affect what he called the "upper class." The press has accurately reported that Obama has also proposed eliminating the cap; even Obama's own website links to a thinktank's analysis of the benefits of a cap elimination.

It would be really easy for Obama to promise to include a "doughnut-hole" or to not eliminate the SS-tax cap. He certainly hasn't been afraid to promise drastically expensive programs of new spending or even tax giveaways to large swaths of the population who aren't paying much tax now.

But when it comes to Social Security, Obama is suddenly vague; when he does discuss details, it is to cite examples (e.g., Warren Buffett) that could not be accomplished without eliminating the cap entirely. And the only reason a politician acts that way is because he supports the more drastic, politically unpopular plan, but doesn't want to get tagged with it before the election, and will say after the election "I only said I would 'consider' a doughnut-hole."

How Barack Obama's Tax Plan Will Affect You [Microsoft Excel file]

Additional discussion and links, after the jump.

[Ed. note: Today we bring you some "news you can use": a practical look at how political choices might affect your personal finances. This post is by Ted Frank, who blogs at Overlawyered.com and PointofLaw.com, and who has guest edited ATL in the past. Take it away, Ted.]

BigLaw lawyers love Obama. If one searches by law firm various databases on-line for campaign contributions, one sees an overwhelming sea of blue, and most of it to Obama.

But how will Obama affect BigLaw wallets? On Above the Law, we regularly see commenters threaten to abandon law firms for falling $5,000/year short of market. I therefore thought it worthwhile to examine the effects of Obama’s tax and spending plans on take-home pay.

We all know that Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts. That is a 3% bump across the board to the bad old days when associates faced a marginal federal tax rate of 36%.

But the real hidden tax is that Obama plans to end the social-security tax cap. Right now, you may notice, sometime during the summer or early fall, your take-home pay suddenly goes up because they stop deducting FICA. Current law caps social security taxes: in 2008, the cap is at $102,000. Obama proposes to abolish this. That mid-summer bump will be no more: add about several thousand dollars to your annual tax bill.

But social-security taxes are not only on employees. The government also charges 6.2% to employers that you never see on your W-2s. But rest assured the partners see this, and will notice that the expense of keeping an associate has risen several thousand dollars a year when FICA taxes double and triple. Will they swallow that additional expense, or take it out of your bonus?

Find out, after the jump (or click here).

* Jose Padilla gets 17 years. [New York Times; Washington Post]

* A merger between Anderson Kill and Reed Smith? Maybe not. But 55 of Anderson Kill’s 126 lawyers have decamped for Reed Smith. [WSJ Law Blog; WSJ Law Blog]

* Ted Frank on yesterday's Enron cert denial: Extortion, interrupted? [New York Sun]

* China shuts down "real-time" porn site, as part of its crackdown on online porn. [Reuters]

* Law tie (however tenuous) to Heath Ledger story: "Nicole Vaughan, 24, a law student at New York University, was in a seminar about Jesus when someone sent her a message about Mr. Ledger. She checked the Web, then walked to the apartment 'because of the way our generation is; we sort of feel we’re a part of each other’s lives.'” [New York Times]

* Apparently Bill Clinton enjoys the Yale Law / Harvard Law rivalry: "I kind of like to see Barack and Hillary fight." [NYDN via Drudge]

* How much will various law-related search terms cost you on Google? Adam Liptak has collected some interesting examples: "Asbestos attorney" = $51.68, "Pro bono lawyer” = $2.89. [NYT via WSJ Law Blog]

* Another day, another Republican politician in a gay sex scandal. [Green Bay Press-Gazette]

* Not law-related, but interesting to those who follow the blogosphere: Vanessa Grigoriadis's detailed profile of Gawker Media. [New York Magazine]

* Blawg Review #130, presented on two attorney/mediator law blogs -- a Southern Hemisphere edition from New Zealand, and a Northern Hemisphere edition from the USA -- recognizes Blog Action Day and International Conflict Resolution Day. [mediator blah... blah... and Online Guide to Mediation, via Blawg Review]

This news is a bit mystifying to us. From the Associated Press:

Jessica Cutler, the former Senate aide whose online sex diary landed her a book deal and a Playboy photo spread but got her kicked off Capitol Hill, has filed for bankruptcy....

Cutler has spent much of her time [recently] fending off a lawsuit by ex-boyfriend and fellow DeWine staffer Robert Steinbuch, who claims Cutler's blog publicly humiliated him. He is seeking more than $20 million in damages.

In court documents filed in the case Thursday, however, Cutler says she can't even pay her American Express bill, legal fees and student loans. She submitted to the judge a copy of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed in New York dated Wednesday.

The lawsuit is being closely watched by online privacy groups and bloggers because the case could help establish whether people who keep online diaries are obligated to protect the privacy of the people they interact with offline.

Our advice to Jessica: retain William P. Smith to represent you in bankruptcy court. You can pay his fees in "Happy Meals."

On a more serious note: How did the Washingtonienne wind up in this financial predicament?

We're not so good with math, so please help us out. We run some numbers, after the jump.

When President Bush delivered the State of the Union last night, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not one of the four Supreme Court justices in attendance.

Oddly enough, however, Justice Ginsburg and President Bush aren't as far apart as one might think. They share something in common:

Both Justice Ginsburg and President Bush were cheerleaders!!!

President Bush's career as a college cheerleader is well-known. But did you know that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a cheerleader too, at Madison High School, in Brooklyn, New York?

We are not kidding. More details available from Ted Frank. It goes without saying that we would LOVE a copy of that yearbook photo.

But hey, anything is possible. If little Olive Hoover (Abigail Breslin) can be a beauty pageant contestant, in Little Miss Sunshine -- which just snagged Oscar nominations for Best Picture and for Breslin's performance, among others -- then surely RBG can be a cheerleader.

Justice Ginsburg, cheerleader [Lagniappe / Ted Frank]

As one of you has noted, our favorite pro se lawsuit, filed back in 2003, has already been decided.

Interested in seeing how the case was resolved? Check out the published opinion: Ward v. Arm & Hammer, 341 F.Supp.2d 499 (2004).

Ted Frank has the link, plus commentary. Click here to satisfy your curiosity.

Because we all love wacky pro se suits: Ward v. Arm & Hammer [Overlawyered]

Earlier: Ward v. Arm & Hammer: What Do You Think?
The Fine Line Separating Pro Se Litigants, Plaintiffs' Lawyers, and Law Professors

Because this distinguished and brilliant jurist seems rather grumpy as of late. Last week, in a published opinion, he slapped around the IRS.

And now Judge Richard Posner -- who, by the way, will be assuming virtual form later this month -- delivers stinging benchslaps to lawyers for playing fast and loose with jurisdiction:

[T]he lawyers have wasted our time as well as their own and (depending on the fee arrangements) their clients' money. We have been plagued by the carelessness of a number of the lawyers practicing before the courts of this circuit with regard to the required contents of jurisdictional statements in diversity cases.

It is time, as we noted in BondPro, that this malpractice stopped. We direct the parties to show cause within 10 days why counsel should not be sanctioned for violating Rule 28(a)(1) and mistaking the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. We ask them to consider specifically the appropriateness, as a sanction, of their being compelled to attend a continuing legal education class in federal jurisdiction.

Ouch. But query whether forced attendance at a CLE class on federal jurisdiction constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment.

Continued commentary, after the jump.

The AEI panel discussion on Watters v. Wachovia Bank that we were liveblogging earlier has ended. Our quick thoughts on the question-and-answer session, after the jump.

The televised event that we put in a plug for earlier today is now underway, on C-Span. And it's actually not just a conversation with Ted Frank (at right), much as we'd enjoy that. It's a full-blown panel discussion, sponsored by AEI, on Watters v. Wachovia Bank, to be argued before the Supreme Court tomorrow.

The topic -- preemption of state banking regulation by federal banking law -- is technical, complicated, and perhaps dry-seeming to some. But we're tuned in, and finding it interesting. (Caveat: We may not be the typical viewer. We're geekily fasincated by preemption, just as we are by ERISA, a statute that frequently raises preemption questions.)

We're also enjoying the occasional camera shots of the audience. E.g., the woman in Kermit-the-Frog green, who was vigorously scratching her nose (and whose facial expression suggested she was oddly intrigued by the nasal itchiness).

When television cameras are in the room, you really must be on your best behavior.

More observations, after the jump.

* 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.)

We previously provided you with our photographic coverage of the Federalist Society's annual dinner, held last Thursday at the Marriott Wardman Park in Washington, DC. Now we offer a short (and admittedly belated) write-up of the proceedings.

For more systematic accounts of the dinner, check out the news links collected at the end of this post. For our more idiosyncratic reflections, read on -- after the jump.

This is one sure way to cut down on frivolous litigation. The Code of Hammurabi could be pretty badass.

And how would the Code treat unjustified lawsuits alleging overly hot coffee? Here's our guess:

If any one bring an accusation of negligence against makers of hot coffee, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall be forced to eat TEN fried McDonald's apple pies, straight out of the fryer.

Yes, McDonald's phased out the fried apple pie with the super-hot filling. But surely they had it in ancient Babylon, given their advanced civilization.

(And you can still find this delicacy at a few other restaurants. Check out the McDonald's Fried Apple Pie Locator for an establishment near you.)

Loser Pays, Babylonian-Style [Point of Law]
Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points [Overlawyered]

* Bill Childs disses AEI's parties. He just doesn't appreciate a good formal gala. [TortsProf Blog]

* FAA regulations: comply with weirded-out flight attendant at all times, no matter how irrational she is. [Prettier Than Napoleon]

* Apple claims right to word "podcast"; next: all soundwaves between 4500 and 6000 MHz. [Overlawyered]

* Blogs can be used against you in court. Duh. [Boston Globe via Elefant]

* Soon to be issued to all incoming associates. [The Billable Hour]

* The first judicial citation to CuteOverload.com. [Volokh]

* Two new books attack string theory; class action lawsuit against Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" inevitable. [New Yorker]

* "I keep forgetting how women are disadvantaged by having to write a research agenda, but I am sure they have to be. Somehow. Always disadvantaged." [Kate Litvak comment on PrawfsBlawg]

* Dom Deluise is not only still alive, but can legally sue his litigious ex-daughter-in-law's lawyer. [Overlawyered]

* Weird Al Yankovic also alive, has aspirations of Jeremy Blachman-dom. [Overlawyered]

* Some might call it clever marketing of E. coli lawsuits, but I say it's spinach and I say to hell with it. [Wall Street Journal]

* It's not too late to download my law review article, and move me higher on the dowload rankings. [SSRN]

* Protest demands recognition of zombie legal rights: "What do we want?" "BRAINS!" "When do we want it?" "BRAINS!" [Boing Boing]

* Upcoming deadline #1: The statute of limitations for suing Merck over Vioxx expires for many many putative plaintiffs today. Court clerks will be busy as attorneys forum shop. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Upcoming deadline #2: The Days of Awe end Sunday, and Yom Kippur starts Sunday night. Stephen Colbert offers a toll-free number, 1-888-OOPS-JEW, if you wish to atone to him. The recorded disclaimer alone (and Colbert's addendum afterwards) makes it worth it, but you get what you pay for. [News From Me]

* It has nothing to do with the law, but how can we avoid mentioning this important press release on Kazakh-Uzbek relations? [Borat.tv]

Good morning. David Lat is in Bumrungrad International Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand for the weekend for what has been euphemistically called "elective surgery." Rest assured, D-Lat will return Monday, safe, sound, and happy to blog, if having to sit on a comfy pillow to do so, and we should all be supportive of the very difficult decisions involved.

In the interim, Lat has asked me to fill in a few posts this Friday, and I'll start by introducing myself. My name is Ted Frank. Some fifteen years ago, I correctly identified the sequence at which Victoria, William, Xavier, Yolanda, and Zachary were seated at a circular table, filled in all corresponding ovals correctly, and was rewarded with a wheelbarrow of money to attend law school in a variety of bad neighborhoods in Connecticut and Massachusetts and Illinois. Because law interested me as a public-policy mechanism, I picked up a copy of The Economics of Justice while I was in a Chicago bookstore visiting that school, and smitten enough to decide to go there on what they called a "Public Service Scholarship." A year of clerking and a dozen years of BigLaw taught me that litigation incentives actually create miserable public-policy results, and I've been writing about this problem on Walter Olson's Overlawyered blog since 2003 and the Point of Law blog since 2004. In 2005, the American Enterprise Institute invited me to run their Liability Project directing research on the tort system and its effects; it's a pay-cut, but the issue is important to me, and then there's the whole Jewish guilt thing over not yet having done the public service I had hypothetically been awarded a scholarship for. And all of this has culminated in today's guest-blogging opportunity on Above the Law, surely the highlight of my career, and worth a tenth of a point if Lat ever scores my wedding. More after the jump.

* Allegations of bill padding at Holland & Knight. An isolated occurrence -- or more widespread within Biglaw? [WSJ via WSJ Law Blog]

* The secret to success: Wake up early. Like really early -- try 3 a.m. That Ann Althouse is a machine! [Althouse]

* Here's a link for those of you who don't think we need tort reform. It's a long post, but well worth reading. (And it's not Ted Frank's fault that the reporter got so much wrong.) [Overlawyered via Volokh Conspiracy]

* We think that judicial clerkships are fabulous -- for clerks, for judges, and for this great nation of ours. But Raffi Melkonian disagrees -- and makes some interesting points. [Crescat Sententia]