Of Floyd Landis, Virgins & Procedural Justice

During an interview just after World War II, an Italian journalist asked the great Italian cycling champion, Fausto Coppi, if he ever used performance enhancing drugs (in that time Amphetamines). He answered that he only used them when it was necessary. “When is it necessary?” the journalist asked next.

“All the time,” he answered.

Drugs in cycling are ubiquitous. They always have been. So, the fact that Floyd Landis has exhausted his appeals of a positive doping test after Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France shouldn’t surprise us – he doped. They all dope. And USPS doped better than anyone else (according to members of the team who have come clean). USPS was a machine that would never allow something like a positive drug test to occur. How Landis let this one get away from him we will never know, but it probably has to do with his new team not being quite as good at it.

Now, after a ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upholding the test for synthetic testosterone conducted after an initial botched test of Landis’ A sample, WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) and USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) are happy that they got their man. According to Travis Tygart (CEO of USADA), Landis “was not able to escape the consequences of his doping or his effort to attack those who protect the rights of clean athletes.” CAS castigated Landis’ efforts to discredit the French Laboratory responsible for conducting tests of athletes. The Tour director is happy that this is finally behind him and the 2008 Tour de France can go on without distraction (for about 5 minutes until the first doping violation emerges immediately after the prologue time trial).

This is an interesting area of international law. While developing international conventions with the goal of establishing uniform standards in testing across various sports, WADA raises questions of bureaucratic regulations and interpretations of rules promulgated by a veritable maze of international organizing bodies for sport. Here is WADA’s own description of itself:

WADA was set up as a foundation under the initiative of the IOC with the support and participation of intergovernmental organizations, governments, public authorities, and other public and private bodies fighting against doping in sport. The agency consists of equal representatives from the Olympic Movement and public authorities.

The maze is complicated by the fact that procedural protections for athletes that are commonly provided for criminally accused in United States courts are simply not there. Several examples are simply confounding, mostly because no one seems to care! The most recent is the statement from WADA today:

As with any athlete whose sample analysis resulted in an adverse analytical finding, Mr Landis had every opportunity to present his case to hearing panels at different stages of the process. He did so and chose in addition to mount an aggressive campaign against the anti-doping movement, spreading an unprecedented amount of misinformation in the public domain to attempt to derail the attention from the core of the case.

What this statement does not address is the finding by both the original panel and the CAS that the French laboratory followed questionable practices. Both determined that the original test (when properly conducted and interpreted) did not justify the second test for the presence of synthetic testosterone. Yet, such procedural violations were not grounds to overturn the positive doping test, return Landis’ Tour title, or overturn his two year ban from cycling. Furthermore, the statement simply continues the policy of criticizing Landis in the press for mounting a public campaign to fund his defense, and for making portions of his case available to the public.

Another example of how athletes lack basic procedural protections is the lip service paid to the innocent until proven guilty standard. WADA, USADA, and other international anti-doping institutions seem hell-bent on discrediting those accused of doping even before any hearing takes place. This is precisely the same kind of behavior that got Mike Nifong in trouble. Dick Pound, former president of WADA said this about Landis after his initial positive test (which, you might keep in mind, was botched, and should not have provided a basis for conducting a further test):

"I mean, it was 11 to 1!" (referring to the testosterone-to-epitestosterone level). "You’d think he’d be violating every virgin within 100 miles. How does he even get on his bicycle?"

He doesn't seem to understand that this isn't the point. And, I'm beginning to understand much more clearly why it is we love Rule of Law here in the United States. Generally speaking, prosecutors here keep their damn mouths shut until they are within the proper venue. WADA, USADA and heads of other agencies have used their positions as bully pulpits, and its an embarrassment.

The anti-doping system requires revision . . . because there is no good guy here. Floyd Landis used banned substances to recover from a massive “bonk” during stage 16, in which he cracked on one of the difficult climbs and fell out of the top ten leaders of the Tour. A guy like that should get the hell out of my sport. But, the procedural safeguards for athletes are inadequate. As much as I hate watching cycling on TV these days (robots on steroids on bicycles), it seems to me that WADA has been given authority to prejudice hearings, determine guilt ad hoc, announce this to the public, and complain when athletes defend themselves. God forbid that we should do what CAS says should be done – seek the truth in the matter.

Retarded legislation: Congressional edition

Look at the sponsors of this constitutional amendment introduced in the Senate on Wednesday...

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. J. RES. 43

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25, 2008

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. SHELBY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

“ARTICLE —

“ Section 1. This article may be cited as the Marriage Protection Amendment.”

“ Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”.

-------------------------

Yeah because adding your name to a Constitutional amendment that has less than a 0% chance of passing makes up for the sins you have committed in the past...

This smells like hypocrisy, which is actually quite similar to the smell of the men's room in the Minneapolis airport.

Mark Twain put it best when he said: "Congressman is the trivialist distinction for a full grown man."

Sweet Jesus

Today the Supremes handed down their ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the case which struck down the D.C. handgun ban. I have skimmed the opinions and am in the process of reading them thoroughly. If you want good, objective analysis please visit here. If, however, you are looking for the lighter side of this ruling, continue reading.

Dozens of advocacy groups have fired off press releases reacting to the ruling. Check out this one that caught my attention (HT to WSJ Law Blog):

'Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition' is the best way to describe today’s decision. The right to self-defense is a liberty at the core of the American Revolution. It was ordinary people who defended life and liberty against organized tyranny. The King of Great Britain sought to disarm the colonists because he, like any criminal, knew that a disarmed people are a weak people who can easily be overcome. The Second Amendment stands as an impenetrable wall between tyranny and freedom.

Who would you guess wrote this statement? The NRA, Citizens' Defense League, Sons of Confederate Veterans?

Not even close. It was Mathew (that is not a typo) Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law. The Liberty Counsel is dedicated to “restoring the culture” (whatever the hell that means) by advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the traditional family. In other words, he's Jerry Falwell's lawyer.

Mat(t), you were so close, but let me tell you how to count to two. You want to ruin the First Amendment to the Constitution. This case deals with the Second Amendment.

I must have missed that day in Sunday School when we were taught that Jesus wants people to own guns. This press release is just the latest example the Religious Right is more interested in political power than theological orthodoxy.

As a Supreme Dicta exclusive, I have obtained Mat(t) Staver's version of Jesus' Beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for they shall get their revenge in a work-place shooting.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be joined by more gun violence victims.

Blessed are the meek,
for they are pussies who don't own guns.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
for they shall become vigilantes.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall put animals out of their misery.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see Charlton Heston.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall shoot first and ask questions later.

Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
for theirs is a five-vote conservative majority.

Mat(t)hew Staver, Supreme Dicta's Wanker of the Day.*

*The term Wanker of the Day is a registered trademark of the very excellent bloggers over at Street Prophets.

U.S. Attorney fights to keep permits for strip club

All's I can say is: AWESOME!

CRAZY HORSE TOO CASE: Prosecutor aims to keep club's value
Stripping special use permits could harm victim's settlement

By ADRIENNE PACKER
REVIEW-JOURNAL

In a rare display of emotion, a federal prosecutor described to a U.S. district judge Monday the dire consequences if the city of Las Vegas strips the Crazy Horse Too of its ability to offer exotic dancing and serve alcohol.

In answering the city's accusation that the federal government's fight to keep the special use permits is about money, Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Johnson openly agreed.

"Is this lust for money? Your honor, this is an effort to find compensation for a man who was left quadriplegic," Johnson said, leaning forward at the courtroom podium. "I'm sorry if that is lusting for money. I'll defend that in any court."

Johnson urged U.S. District Judge Philip Pro to intervene with a city ordinance that would devalue the shuttered Industrial Road strip club by rescinding special use permits that allow exotic dancing and liquor.

Johnson's eyes teared up when he emphasized how important it is for Kirk Henry to collect a $10 million settlement from former Crazy Horse owner Rick Rizzolo. Henry was left paralyzed after he was pummeled by strip club employees after arguing over his drink tab in 2001.

Rizzolo pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges in 2006 and served a one-year prison sentence. His plea agreement requires him to pay Kirk Henry $10 million from the sale of the club. The federal government seized the club when Rizzolo failed to negotiate a sale within a year of his plea deal.

Johnson argued that the value of the club would plummet from between $32 million and $35 million to between $8 million and $10 million without the special permits. The club opened before current zoning laws were adopted, but was allowed to continue operating.

The strip club has been closed since the federal government took it over last August.

Deputy City Attorney Bill Henry, who is not related to Kirk Henry, said the city would be "outraged" if Pro took the uncommon step of overriding a city ordinance.

He explained to Pro that the special use permits are stripped if the owner abandons them or discontinues the use of them. He said the federal government has done just that by failing to reopen the club.

He said the federal government could gain another year if it opens the club, serves alcohol and provides adult entertainment for an eight-hour period.

But prosecutors argued that the federal government is not in the business of operating strip clubs.

"This is ridiculous," Bill Henry said.

A blast from the past

The craziness quotient of the presidential election just got ratcheted up by a big factor. Guess who's back on the scene?

Go check out his site. It's like 1992 all over again with the charts and the graphs. We just need another Texas wedding to be sabotaged and it's freackin' deja vu. And once again, Perot is talented when it comes to outlining problems, but totally lacking in good solutions.

BTW, I think the Perot audience is getting very old. Check out on the entries on the FAQs page:

FAQ 1: Is PerotCharts.com a Web site or is it a blog? And what is a blog?

PerotCharts.com is a Web site with a blog, but the emphasis of this Web site is placed on the blog. For those visitors who are not yet acquainted with blogs, here is a brief explanation, along with some history of the word blog.

A few years ago, traditional Web site developers realized that with a few changes to their software, they could make the job of updating a Web site much easier for non-technical people who were usually more interested in what their Web sites had to say, rather than how they looked. This group was primarily composed of would-be journalists searching for an alternative means of publishing their thoughts and ideas quickly and often, as well as individuals simply wanting to maintain online diaries.

On a somewhat serious note, I was a research assistant on a book about the Perot movement and its impact on the other two political parties. Go check it out (I even get a mention in the acknowledgments).

Sheriff of the day

Citizens of Northwest Ohio, your tax dollars are being put to good use:

WESTON - The children attending Weston Church of Christ's Vacation Bible School recently have learned "there are rules, and then there are Rules."

Wood County Sheriff Mark Wasylyshyn was the guest speaker from the community on one night of the school, and he spoke to two classes, second and third graders, plus fourth through eighth grade students.

After talking to the children about safety, he showed them a thin, paperback New Testament and a three-inch thick copy of Ohio's Criminal Motor Vehicle Laws, or the Ohio Revised Code. In the classes he asked who had heard about the 10 Commandments, and about half of the children in each room raised their hands.

"God has some very simple rules for us to follow," he told the younger children. "Isn't it amazing God was able to tell us rules, just 10?"

"Those same 10 rules are in this book," the sheriff said, showing a copy of the Ohio Revised Code. He noted how simple it would be if society had just God's 10 rules. A deputy would pull a driver over to the side of the road and inform the driver which commandment he or she had broken. "It'd be real simple."

He marveled in both classes that God "in all his wonder was able to do it with 10 rules. I, as sheriff of the county, don't know every single one of these rules."

Let us pause and meditate on the stupidity...

First off, I did not know that Colonel Klink was still alive.

Second, if I get pulled over for speeding, can I point out to this sheriff that speeding isn't covered in the Ten Commandments?

Finally, did you notice what literature he used to compare the Ohio code? The New Testament. Where are the Ten Commandments located? The OLD Testament. Sweet Jesus.

The King is Dead. Long Live the King

George Carlin died yesterday, vacating the throne of Best Comedian he inherited from Lenny Bruce. By popular election and divine decree, Lewis Black is now king (I do not have the time to make this shit up).

Carlin's act entitled "Seven Dirty Words You can Never Say on Televison," portions of which appeared on two different albums (Class Clown and Occupation: Foole), was the basis for FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, in which the Court determined that the FCC has the power to regulate content on the airwaves and set decency standards. The Court included a complete transcript of the routine as part of the record. Which just goes toward failing to disprove what Justice O.W. Holmes, Jr. said (and is often referenced in regard to this case) "You cannot define obsenity without being obscene."

Carlin had the power to push everyone's buttons at once. What follows is perhaps my favorite Carlin quotation, a response to the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, and Carlin's opening line at Carnegie Hall:

"Have you ever noticed that the women who support abortion rights are the ones you wouldn't wanna fuck anyway?"

Well, Carlin was (as he often said) issued a ticket to watch the freak show we call life. He punched his ticket yesterday. Along with the loss of Tim Russert, we are in bad shape for the upcoming election.

Kids Say the Darnedest Things - Part 2 of 2

Following up on yesterday's post, here are some additional passages from a 15th Amendment essay on the Advanced Placement U.S. Government Exam.

• The Montgomery buss boycott led to the doctrine of “separate but equal” which helped give blacks more civil rights.
• Congress passed the 1/3 act. Each African American vote counted for a 1/3 vote.
• 15th Amendment made it leagle for African Americans to vote.
• Discriminatory behavior is not tolerated today, and everyone is completely equal. While voting.
• Back in the 1960s there was a high proportion of African American slaves whom were not able to vote.
• Greater turn out among African American voters has increased the margin of error in our elections.
• Whites purposefully wrote ballots cryptically so they couldn’t be used properly. This discouraged the black voter and perpetuated hatred.
• Some African Americans joined the mafia was a result of John Crow laws.
• During the 1960s civil rights movement, protestors sent letters and emails peacefully to the President LBT.
• Rosa Parks was an elderly African American woman who became the cover girl for racial integration.
• MLK marched down the streets of a small Alabama town singing songs. When he arrived at a voting booth, a woman was asked to guess how many jelly beans were in a jar. When she guessed wrong the police arrested her.
• The literacy tests were graded unfairly (something I hope you will not do on this exam).
• Many blacks were illiterate, or couldn’t even talk, so voting was out of the question.
• It’s not a lie that we’ve had racial segregation.
• The NATO was an African organization that helped abolish discrimination in a way.
• African Americans may have been freed, but they were still mad at the government for making them go through all that labor.

N.B. My friend who provided these answers was not grading the essays of her students. They were essays from kids nationwide, and they were graded without the names of the students being known.

What Thirteenth Amendment?

Georgia is full of stupid people, apparently. First, the Georgia Legislature appropriated so little money that the Public Defender's office threatened to shut down for the month of June. Now, we learn that Georgia is full of wanna-be plantation owners:

According to Nahmias' office, the Garretts convinced an Indian national to come to the United States in January of 2003 under the false impression that she would be Russell and Malika Garrett's nanny. The Garretts allegedly stopped paying the victim for her work as a nanny and threatened her freedom if she refused to work for them.

The best part? Garrett is Judge Garrett, formerly (but, hallelujah, not anymore) of the Fulton County Magistrate Court.

Not even Scalia is this crazy. Sure, he's widely believed to own Clarence Thomas, body and soul, but people who know say that it's Thomas who pulls the puppet strings that make Scalia dance. But this judge actually tried to own somebody.

No matter how you feel about "brown people," this is just bullshit. Even if your hatred of "illegals" is based on your hate for people who look different (in which case, hi, former Congressman Tancredo!), we can all agree that this is just crap.

Fuck you, Judge Garrett, and I hope you get a nice long sentence in general population, where you learn what it means to be "owned." And then sold for cigarettes.

Kids Say the Darnedest Things

A friend of mine had the unenviable task of grading essays for the U.S. Government Advanced Placement Exam. My friend was kind enough to make some notes of the more, shall we say, creative responses written by these so-called advanced high school students. Some of the answers are just priceless (and by priceless I really mean worthless).

First off, here is the question:

"Despite the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, voter turnout among African American citizens was very low throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Over the past 50 years, civil rights policies have changed substantially, along with a significant increase in African American voter turnout.

(a) Explain how two measures taken by some states prior to the 1960s affected voter turnout among African American citizens.

(b) Facing discrimination at the voting booth, many African American citizens turned to alternative forms of political participation. Describe two alternative forms of participation that helped bring about changes in civil rights policies.

(c) Choose one of the forms of participation you described in (b) and explain why it was effective in changing civil rights policies."

Let the stupidity begin...

• The Separate But Equal Act was set forth in Marbury v. Madison.
• Separate But Equal made morality low among African Americans.
• African American voting booths were not as nice as white voting booths.
• African American voter turnout was effected by discrimination in the tool booth.
• In a measure taken to limit voter turn out, Martin Luther King was assonated. Many African Americans were not happy.
• Bonuses were provided and free food and drink provided to encourage low income voters to vote.
• Most African Americans did not vote because they hated the white man.
• African Americans turned to other vices for political participation.
• African Americans turned to alternate forms of political participation such as the creation of the AARP.
• Protesters gained national sympathy when we saw the violence against blacks committed by agents of the federal government such as state police.
• States imposed high poll tolls on voting booths.
• Literary tests administered to African American voters were a lot like this exam.
• The African Americans were administered unfair “litteracy” tests. (with two “t”s)
• No African American in the first half of the 20th century was allowed to go to school.
• If some African Americans went around saying “Billy Bob will make us equal,” then African Americans would vote for Billy Bob.
• Strom Thurman was the first black man in Congress.

Wow. Warning: don't think about these responses too long or blood will shoot out of your nose.

I fear for this country if this is what ADVANCED PLACEMENT high school students are writing. It makes me question whether going into academia is the right career choice. What happens when these kids reach college and they are expected to learn complex concepts? Must...prevent...nose bleed...

I have a lot more good (awful) responses that I will probably post tomorrow.

Could This Be Proof that Justice Thomas is Depressed?

Today, the New York Times printed excepts from commencement speeches given at various universities and colleges around the country. Harvard got to hear how J.K. Rowling is terrified of public speaking (she cried all the way to the Bank of London). Carnegie Mellon got a story about Al Gore at a Shoney's Restaurant. Jessica Lange went nuts on George Bush at Sarah Lawrence College. In retaliation, Bush informed the graduating class of Furman University that he has suddenly become interested in civic engagement. Thank heavens for those 10,000 disenfranchised African American voters in Florida's 2000 election that helped Bush become president . . . so he could lecture us on civic engagement.

San Francisco State University was treated to some revisionism straight out of an AP History exam, courtesy of Mayor Gavin Newsome. In it, Newsome said that Henry Ford went bankrupt numerous times (he never declared bankruptcy, and certainly not five times!!). He also explained that Dr. Seuss had tremendous difficulty finding a publisher:

Dr. Seuss tried to publish that darn green eggs and whatever ham, not once — five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-three times he was rejected. Until a publisher finally said, "All right, what the heck do I have to lose?"

This I say in response:

Gosh, Mr. Honorable Mayor, Sir!
Dr. Seuss' first published in '37, sir!!
And, not that Green Eggs and (Whatever) Ham
Here is the truth about Sam I Am:

In 1960 Seuss published that book
Years later? Approximately twenty and three
His publisher was happy after only one look
Look it up!! Look it up and you'll see!

While they all seemed somewhat entertaining (even Al Gore in his own way), and certainly better than the speaker at my undergraduate commencement (he was the adle-pated CEO of a company that declared bankruptcy two weeks later), Justice Clarence Thomas' commencement address at High Point University revealed a good deal of just how depressed this guy must be. Here is an excerpt:

I have no intention of cluttering up your graduation ceremony with ruminations about law, grievances or ephemeral commands on you to solve the world’s problems. Most of us would do well to solve our own problems. Often, as most of us know, the real battle is conquering ourselves. But I do ask that you give me just a few brief minutes of your time on this most important day. Let me first confess that I am no good at telling people what to think or how to live their lives. As those of us who take responsibility for our lives, and don’t blame others, know only so well, life has a way of humbling, if not humiliating us.

Paging Dr. Freud. Dr. Freud to the Supreme Court, stat.

Okay, soooooo, let's do some textual analysis. I'm of the opinion that while Justice Thomas' words mean what they say, the intent of the framer of those words (i.e., Thomas himself) might have been different than the plain meanings of the words themselves. Hmmm. Let's consider the possible subtexts which might lead us to consider the Justice's state of mind.

I am certain that Justice Thomas meant to have a good time celebrating the commencement of these young people (his photograph in the Times suggests he is either happy, or about to take a bite out of the forearm of the person whose hand he is shaking). But, this guy has got some deep-seated animosity. Animosity that simply cannot be denied, even during a joyous commencement day event at which he is the Belle of the Ball.

An internal contradiction stands out, and it's one that seems at first blush to be based in the flimsy "different strokes for different folks" relativism of modern thinking. The Justice doesn't presume to tell the listener how to live, and instead implies that the graduates should all go on with their lives and God Bless. Because, life is a journey, and the journey is one of self-discovery through conquering ourselves, our own problems. To paraphrase Kung Fu, "you must choose your own path." Anyway, he strays dangerously close to this.

But, then we get to what traditionally comes across as ponderous (and pompous) self-righteousness: those of us who are better than everyone else . . . who don't complain and "blame others" . . . who suck it up and get screwed with our pants on . . . and like it . . . who are nothing like those damnable liberals practicing their wicked politics of victimization . . . we know that life sucks, it's not just humbling. It's one big, constant humiliation. And, you're going to have to get used to it. So, we'd better get started with the "life sucks" talk right now, kids.

I've had a few thoughts about Thomas' character over the years. I've chaffed at his justifications for building his jurisprudence around a single sentence stripped out of context from Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy. Along with the rest of those who study the Court I have puzzled over his silence on the bench. I have thought of him as self-righteous, an angry, angry man, or a mini-Scalia ("I will call him . . . Mini-Scalia. I love you, Mini-Scalia. You complete me . . . and my jurisprudence. If I lost you I'd be inconsolable for about ten minutes. Then, I'd just get Alito to fill in").

But, I have a different thought now. Justice Thomas needs medication for what surely must be a debilitating case of clinical depression. How someone who sits on the highest court in the land, who gets to spend his life solving legal puzzles for a living, who has life-tenure (I like THAT tenure track), and whose party controls the court on which he sits can be so angry and bitter, one can only explain with reference to neurosis.

So, Justice Thomas, get some help. Talk therapy and medication could save the country a lot of time and effort undoing what you undoubtedly wouldn't consider doing if you could just be happy.

Pun of the day

Monday's San Francisco Chronicle has a story called, "Justice is served: A Harvard Law grad develops an odd obsession." Here's the gist of it:

Klein spends nearly every free minute making magic marker drawings. Not just any magic marker drawings, but drawings that are converted to dinner plates — Make-a-Plates, specifically, that cheap craft store staple where marker drawings are transferred permanently onto melamine dishware. Klein had never been a drawer, but something swept over him. It wasn't landscapes and still lifes that emerged, but the figures and doctrines that comprise the jurisprudential canon. With a savantlike intensity he began translating law school into odd and remarkably lovely images you can eat off of.

There's "Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists," part of the First Amendment series. There's the Punitive Damages collection. There are six plates commemorating the Interstate Commerce Clause. Then there's each of the Supreme Court justices, lovingly rendered. And so it was that Klein had become something of an outsider artist at perhaps the ultimate insider institution.

What does this brilliant artist call his creations? Learned Handmade Plates. Hardy-harr-harr. Sorry it's very hammy, but I still find it funny. If you don't get it, please educate yourself here.

Here's a pic of the Justice Scalia plate:

Judges Have Needs

A jimmy hat tip to Above the Law for this little tidbit:

One of the highest-ranking federal judges in the United States, who is currently presiding over an obscenity trial in Los Angeles, has maintained a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in an interview with The Times that he had posted the materials, which included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as "funny."

Wait, what?

a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! I don't even know what to make of this. Look, Kozinski may, by some, be regarded as a good judge. Truthfully, I haven't read enough of his stuff to know. But this has some serious whoa-ness to it. At the very least, this is stuff of which impeachment hearings are made. There may not be a vote to impeach, but I would hope that John Conyers would be able to take some time to think about this one.

Of course, with all the innumerable investigations that Mr. Conyers has ongoing, investigations in which lives are at stake, The Case of the Pornography-Purveying Judge might not be high on his priority list.

Best Motion to Reschedule Oral Argument EVER

Grateful H/T to Legal Antics:

Which Supreme Court Justice Enjoys Sex in the City?

From The Intelligencer Blog of New Yorker Magazine:

Apparently Antonin Scalia is a Sex and the City fan. When Sarah Jessica Parker finished an interview with Charlie Rose on May 29, she left the Bloomberg Building, where the show is taped, and stopped for a cigarette in the courtyard. The conservative Supreme Court justice emerged from a nearby Town Car and rushed over to praise the star. “He was absolutely gushing, telling her how much he loved her show and how excited he was to see the movie,” says a witness. “Finally, he asked her if he could bum a cigarette.” She obliged, the witness said, and then Scalia strolled away. A Supreme Court spokeswoman confirmed the meeting but denied the cadge. “He was there for a symposium,” she said. “And he lent her a match.”

This story left me unnerved. Spiritually and morally. So I must turn to the Holy Scripture that can provide comfort whenever I feel disturbed.

A Reading from the Gospel According to Lewis Black (which has been modified to apply to this situation):

[When you read a story like this], your brain comes to a screeching halt. And the left hand side of the brain looks at the right hand side and goes, "It's dark in here, and we may die."

Don't! Don't think about [Scalia's TV preferences] for more than three minutes, or blood'll shoot out your nose. The American medical profession doesn't know why we get an aneurysm. It's when a blood vessel bursts in our head for no apparent reason. There's a reason.

Now [this story is] in your head. And those words don't go away. Cause the way I see it, 7% of our brains functions all the time, because 99% of everything that happens is the same old stuff. We get it. All right. Move on. Get it. Right.

But every so often, somethin' like that happens [and you read a blog post about Justice Scalia being a Sex in the City fan]. So your brain goes, 'LET'S FIGURE IT OUT! And as your brain attempts to understand this crap, your eyes close and the next morning they find you dead in your bathroom.

Here endeth the reading. Thanks be to Lew.

Supreme Dicta is not legally responsible for any aneurysms caused be reading this or any other post.

Excellent Dicta

H/T to the WSJ Law Blog.

The details of this case really don't matter. All you need to know is there is a discovery dispute arose over the location of a deposition for a witness. The two possible locations are San Antonio, Texas, and Bentonville, Arkansas.

Recognizing the gravity of the situation, Judge James Nowlin, in an order, wrote:

The Court is sympathetic with the Defendant’s argument. Surely Defendant’s corporate representative, a resident of Arkansas, would feel great humiliation by being forced to enter the home state of the University of Texas, where the legendary Texas Longhorns have wrought havoc on the Arkansas Razorbacks with an impressive 55-21 all-time record.

On the other hand, the Court is sympathetic with Plaintiff’s position. Plaintiffs might enter Arkansas with a bit of trepidation as many residents of Arkansas are still seeking retribution for the “Game of the Century” in which James Street and Darrell Royal stunned the Razorbacks by winning the 1969 National Championship.

How do you solve such a delicate problem? The judge ordered the deposition to take place in Texarkana (on the border between the two states).

N.B. - this is not the first time that college football loyalties have interfered with judicial proceedings.

They may take our lives, but they will never take our BEER! (Actually they did)

Best. Yale. Application. Ever.

There are stupid people everywhere.

Even at Yale. And also, the Wall Street Journal.

So this kid is apparently so desperate to get into Yale that he actually forges his transcript. And his letter of recommendation.

So, who gets the nomination for "Stupidest Person in This Post?"

The kid, who somehow figured that nobody would ever check up on him and make sure that his records submitted actually reflected his work?

The admissions office, who extended an offer to this kid, and took two terms to figure out he forged his records?

Or the Wall Street Journal's blawger, who didn't know what an Alford plea is?

I shouldn't mock - I haven't had criminal procedure, and if I hadn't worked for a judge last spring, I wouldn't know what an Alford (also called a "best-interest") plea is. But in any event, the point is this: how dumb can you be to simultaneously successfully complete work at Columbia, NYU and St. John's (which this kid did), and still think that you can get away with essentially faking your application to Yale?

Seriously, where on the "brains" scale does THAT fall?

Pomp and Circumstance

It's that time of year again...when politicians put on their caps and gowns and write lengthy trite speeches to be given in the sweltering sun or crowded gymnasiums. It's commencement address season, and even former Attorney General (and legendary dikephobe) Alberto Gonzales has landed a speaking gig.

What prestigious university or law school nabbed the first-ever Latino AG?

Well...the school is located in the Virgin Islands.

And...it isn't a college or law school. It's a high school.

And...the graduating class is six students. Not 600. Six (as in one smaller than seven).

But look on the bright side, Al, they're paying your $40,000 speaking fee. And you get a free trip to the Virgin Islands! Which should cheer you up, considering you can't land a job.

Talk about getting your just desserts. This is sweeter than Coldstone!!

(An incredibly grateful hat tip to Above the Law.)

It's J-Dave's Birthday!

A quick hit to let you know of a very special holiday here in Alabama. It's so important that the entire state government closes to mark this momentous occasion.

What could this day possibly be?

Jefferson Davis' birthday.

As a Mississippian by birth (which, it just so happens, J-Dave was as well), I appreciate the efforts by the State of Alabama to remember our former favorite son. But really? A man whose greatest efforts and talents were dedicated to rending the nation asunder? Let's think this one through a little more.

Alabama, a state known for its politicians swearing to never be "out-niggered again" (seriously? You can verb that word?), a state with Partisan. Judicial. Elections. (vote in the Republican primary for Chief Justice of Alabama!), is going to (did!) shut down the state in order to celebrate the birth of the President of what Jay Winik calls "the first American nation."

Okay, so maybe we should be marking his birth. Let me explain. Winik points out that the United States "had its constitutional roof before its national walls," in that there was a national government before there was a national identity. The Civil War marked the demarcation between people saying "The United States are..." and "The United States is..." To that extent, we have to thank the Confederacy for pushing this nation into one coherent whole.

So, Happy Birthday, J-Dave! May the memory of what you did (inadvertently, to be sure) for this country never fade!