For all the talk about illumination, there was nothing light about writing this week’s Blawg Review, which is up now over at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®.
Archive for the ‘Lex scripta’ Category
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 22, 2008
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 17, 2008
“hiLARious!!! your year’s best!”
She could be right, I don’t know. There are some really good ones. (And some really good MasterCard, uh, cards, too.)
Imagine how good the blog must have been last year!
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 14, 2008
Above the Law reproduces “A Lawyerly Holiday Party Invite.”
This invitation may vary depending on the laws of your state.
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 10, 2008
BLAGOJEVICH: “Vengeful and Profane.” Doesn’t sound like he’s going to get much support from the media, or fellow Democratic politicians.
Oh, but what “help” might he provide?
My first inclination was to think that perhaps we have here a new James Traficant! Defiant and all. But then I thought better of it, for if Mr. Fitzgerald the prosecutor has even half of what he claims he’s got on Blagojevich, the Illinois governor is very dead meat — but has far, far more to sell than Traficant ever did.
It seems likely that Blagojevich knows, well… everything about the seedy underside of Illinois politics. Everything.
Did that link say “vengeful”? This could be a very, very warm winter on the shores of Lake Michigan!
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 9, 2008
“Redundancy consultation exercise?” You have to love the British use of the English language.
I have other reasons for loving things like this, but yeah, I love that, too.
Posted by Ron Coleman on November 20, 2008
Or just some bad lobster? Bruce McEwen asks, apropos “BigLaw” — the major law firms whose profitability and hourly rates seem always to be immune from economic reality:
If the US Treasury is a major stockholder in major financial institutions, how will that change the dynamic of how premium-level legal services are bought and sold? Not to be facetious about it, but how would you feel to be called before Barney Frank to justify your $950/hour rates?
Not facetious at all.
Posted by Ron Coleman on November 13, 2008
This creep in Austria is being charged with just about every awful crime in the book. It’s a grisly story. But here’s what jumped out at me:
If convicted of the murder charge, Fritzl would face life imprisonment, which in Austria typically means 15 years’ confinement. Austria, like other European countries, has no death penalty.
Which makes me wonder, what would be so terrible about the death penalty then? If “life imprisonment” means 15 years, a sentence of death probably means a really painful hangnail.
Posted by Ron Coleman on November 5, 2008
Same-sex marriage advocates wasted no time suing to overturn the decisive result in the voting over California’s Proposition 8:
As the vote counting continued this morning, opponents of Prop. 8 filed a lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court – whose May 15 ruling legalized same-sex marriage – asking the justices to overturn the measure.
The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways – taking important rights away from a minority group – that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
The same groups asked the court before the election to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot on those grounds. The justices refused, but left the door open for a post-election challenge.
“A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities,” said Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU lawyer. “Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiative such revisions.”
I don’t know anything about the California constitution, but it would sure surprise me to learn that same-sex marriage is one of its “organizing principles.” But it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the California Supreme Court would rule that it is!
That must be some state, California. What else do they have in that constitution of theirs? Makes France look more backward than ever.
Posted by Ron Coleman on November 4, 2008
I have been writing consistently, stridently and at some cost to my frazzled nerves, based on the reactions, that fear-mongering by anti-Obama partisans is a mistake, is unwarranted, is irresponsible. (UPDATE: Not just me.)
But there is one thing I really do fear, and unlike socialism or any other bogeyman trotted out in this election, you need not look under the bed to find it: It’s the Orwellian-named Fairness Doctrine. And Democrats have unabashedly promised to bring it back via legislation.
This is a genuine threat to everything unless the Supreme Court either revisits is prior, wrong decisions upholding the Fairness Doctrine and rules, as it should, that it is unconstitutional. The Internet helps, because it is an alternative medium — for now. But the Fairness Doctrine is the scariest thing the Democrats are promising, and it makes anything else that you can imagine, or have imagined, and that the likes of me have poo-pooed, eminently possible.
So, yeah, on this I do say “be very scared.”
UPDATE: Maybe people are getting scared, finally.
Posted by Ron Coleman on October 31, 2008
It’s not just law professors or even lawyers thinking about this. And it’s not entirely about Obama — after all, of all places he did teach at the University of Chicago, hardly a hotbed of lefty bomb-throwing on the the law faculty.
But when you look at that posse around him and all those JD’s… you just try and fall asleep!
(Besides, some journalism really does work better in pajamas!)