Why I freacking love Keith Olbermann

The whole video is funny, but the joke of the day begins at the 1:45 mark.

Dumbest Free Exercise Claim Ever!

Hat tip to Howard Friedman, who writes the excellent Religion Clause blog.

A divorced dad has refused to pay his child support through his state's Central Child Support Receipting Unit. He would rather pay the money directly to his wife because this processing unit violates his First Amendment free exercise rights.

What does child support have to do with religious freedom? Well, each state Central Child Support Receipting Unit is established under a federal statute codified at 42 USC Sec. 666.

That's right - he believes his payment would be processed by a "Satanic entity."

He brought a case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals which rejected his claim. As Professor Friedman writes:

The court, however, held that the state's statute is uniformly applicable and facially neutral as to religion. Therefore it is valid so long as it reasonably promotes a legitimate public purpose. The court found that standard to be satisfied.

What if this crackpot had won his case? Any time three "6"s appear in a government agency's phone number or address, Christians would be exempt from its purview? If that were the case, Congress should chnage the phone number of the IRS right away.

N.B. Here is a recording of the judges at the beginning of oral argument:

ZeitGeist

For those of you who have never seen the funniest video blog on the Web, let me introduce you to ZeitGeist. The blogger, Willie Geist, is a sidekick on the MSNBC's Morning Joe (and yes, he is Bill Geist's son). Today Willie tackles two good law-ish stories. Enjoy!

Best Performing Arts Center Ever!

I need to get my ass to Iowa. Why might you ask? To get me some culture.

You see, Iowa has a pretty strong indecent exposure law that was designed to make strip clubs illegal. But there's a loophole. Nude dancing is allowed at arts centers, theaters, museums, etc. So dozens of strip clubs have popped up throughout the state under this cultural banner.

Finally, a way to get more men interested in the arts. I wonder what kind of stripper names they use at an "arts center"? If you see girls dancing under the name Manet or Gaugain, stay the hell away. I wonder if these clubs play Verdi or Tchaikovsky while the women strip.

It looks like the Iowa government left the strip clubs alone, until the sheriff of a small town in Iowa found out his 17-year-old niece was dancing at one of these "arts centers." Whoops. Now there is a lawsuit.

"Dance has been considered one of the arts, as is sculpture, painting and anything else like that. What Clarence has is a club where people can come and perform," said Michael Murphy, the club's attorney.

Murphy also noted that the club has a gallery selling collectible posters and other art. And it provides patrons with sketch pads.

Finally, lapdancing for people with discriminating tastes. The state of Iowa: putting the "gentlemen" back in Gentlemen's Clubs. I bet I can guess who is a regular customer.

Losing Makes Ya Crazy

At least, that's the only explanation I can think of for Stephen Calabresi's latest in the Chicago Tribune.


Seriously, I have neither the time nor the energy to make this shit up. Obama's too young to be President, based on some bullshit stretching of "living Constitution" interpretation. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you, Calabresi? Did all that proximity to Posner make you crazy? Or have you drunk your own Kool-Aid, what with being fellated by Federalist Society pukes too stupid to figure out that your interpretations were nonsense?

Okay, I know I don't have the kind of readers the Trib does, but let me set the record straight. A "living Constitution"-alist doesn't get to change the text of the Constitution just because they, you know, want to, and to score points. There has to be an amibiguity in the text (like, say, "What's 'commerce'?"), and then the living Constitution says that we should prefer a modern interpretation, because, hey, we're modern. Some of us might even be postmodern.

"Thirty-five" is, I'm sorry to say, not ambiguous. And Calabresi's op-ed isn't clever, or witty, or even satirical. It's just fuckin' stupid.

Lawsuit of the Day (apparently all the news is NOT fit to print)

America is the most litigious country in the world. But sometimes, a frivolous lawsuit is still very valuable because of the point it gets across. Here's a story from the NPR show On the Media:

BROOKE GLADSTONE: News organizations, editors and bloggers all are dealing with the financial difficulties newspapers face, but what about readers? What recourse have they if they're upset with a paper’s efforts to downsize? They could write a letter, cancel their subscription, or even —sue? That’s the line of attack chosen by a newspaper reader in Durham, North Carolina.

Attorney Keith Hempstead recently filed a lawsuit against his local paper, The News and Observer, and its parent company, McClatchy Newspapers, after they laid off 70 employees and announced cuts to the news pages. He says he’s mad, and he’s not going to take it any more.

KEITH HEMPSTEAD: I'm suing because I'm upset with the state of the newspaper industry in general, and I feel like I can represent subscribers to the various McClatchy newspapers that are frankly upset with the state of the industry and how it’s being run.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: But what’s the charge?

KEITH HEMPSTEAD: The charge in this case is fraud.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: [LAUGHS]

KEITH HEMPSTEAD: I'm stating or alleging that when I renewed my newspaper subscription, I was relying upon a superior product, but with these cuts, that were announced after I renewed the newspaper, I feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick.

Lost In Translation

I don’t usually blog about the war in Iraq, mostly because I’m so goddamned sick of hearing about it. But I have to relay to you my glee at the desperation over the war being felt by the Bush Administration. One of President Bush’s favorite sound bytes is, “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Well, now the Iraqi government has told us to get the f*#@ out of Dodge (and by Dodge, I mean Baghdad).

So that means we should leave, right? Not according to the Cowboy-in-Chief, we leave when we think we should and the Iraqis will just have to deal with it. So the Bush Administration needed to fire up the ol’ Spin Machine to deal with the Iraqi prime minister’s interview with the German magazine, Der Spiegel (why do German words sound so dirty?). During that interview, he endorsed Senator Obama’s timetable for withdrawal.

The Bush spin tactic? The prime minister was mistranslated. Wow. That’s the best you can do? The credibility of your entire foreign policy comes down to a mistranslation? Even OJ had a better excuse than that one.

Actually, on second thought, maybe this claim has some truth to it. Maybe Der Spiegel was also responsible for this botched German translation…

Bizarro West Wing!

I found this recent New York Times intriguing and slightly disturbing:

During the four years he spent as President Bush’s “body man,” or personal aide, Blake Gottesman acquired an eclectic set of job skills.

He emerged from the experience schooled at reading presidential moods, expert at handling Mr. Bush’s Scottish terrier Barney, and adept at carting around the mundane necessities of presidential life, including Sharpies for autograph-signing, hand sanitizer for shooing away germs and money to pay the rare restaurant tab.

Now, after a two-year hiatus, Mr. Gottesman is back at the White House, with the lofty title of deputy chief of staff, responsibility for overseeing day-to-day operations and a $172,000-a-year salary. (With six months left in Mr. Bush’s term, he will earn only half that.) He is 28.

And here’s a photo showing Mr. Gottesman’s extensive qualifications for being a senior presidential advisor:

(When President Bush tried to leave a Beijing news conference through a locked door, Gottesman rescues him.)

I know how to open a door. I am going to demand a promotion to a $172K job at my place of employment.

Actually I shouldn’t snipe at politicians’ body men. One in particular was one of my favorite characters on The West Wing, Charlie Young. In fact, this real-life promotion is eerily familiar to what President Bartlett did in the waning days of his administration. With his only qualifications derived from his days as a bodyman, Chief of Staff C.J. Cregg hires Charlie to the Deputy Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff.

I’ve always wanted to see the political drama of The West Wing unfold in real life, but this is not what I had in mind. This is a perverted Bizarro version of The West Wing. President Bartlett is a Nobel laureate economist. President Bush was a C-student at Yale and a failed businessman. President Bartlett used soaring and inspirational rhetoric. President Bush is lucky to pronounce his own name correctly. I could go on and on…

In real life, our country is being run by a 28-year-old. And actually, that does not scare me. Dick Cheney has decades of political experience and look at how badly he has fu&#$% things up.

Concerning Blasphemy (and Irony)

The mayor of Aberystwyth (no, I didn't sneeze on my keyboard, it's a city in Wales) is attempting to overturn a nearly 30-year ban on the Monty Python classic, the Life of Brian. The mayor dismissed the argument that the film constitutes blasphemy, saying: "I would like to think that any religion would have the generosity to see the film for what it is, which is a comedy."

Well put. Except the mayor, Sue Jones-Davies also played the role of Brian's girlfriend in the film. In fact, she even performed nude in one scene. But considering what makes the air in Britain these days, Monty Python is almost family friendly by comparison.

It's reassuring to know that fighting conservative religious zealots is not a uniquely American problem.

Best Newspaper Graphic Ever!

And it wasn't even in USA Today.

Droopy drawers laws are back again, this time in Flint, Michigan. Apparently cops have nothing better to do in that city than inspect waistlines for fashion faux-pas. (I have been following this pathetic trend since legislation was introduced in Virginia to criminalize saggy pants in 2005. Sigh.) But here's the good news: the droopy drawers crack down - pun somewhat intended - led to this great graphic in the Detroit Free Press:

Left:A Class C offense, exposing a portion of the undergarment but no skin, will result in a warning.

Center: A Class B offense involves a sag below the gluteal curve, but one that similarly exposes only the undergarment.

Right:Class A violations are those in which the sag of pants and/or undergarment results in any exposure of the rear cleavage.

Both the latter offenses could result in a year in jail. Good Lord!

Grateful hat tip to Lowering the Bar.

The irony of Boudemeine

The Mid Summer Classic

And now for something completely different...

As the Major League season pauses for the All-Star game, I would like to take a moment to honor the best and worst of baseball in 2008.

What's been great?

• Josh Hamilton - A highly touted high school prospect, Hamilton's career was nearly derailed by a drug addiction that kept him out of baseball for four years. Now he is living up to his potential - in the running for the Triple Crown, and he simply dazzled at last night's Home Run Derby, hitting a record 28 dingers in the first round alone.
  
• Tampa Bay Rays - The perpetually losing team in Tampa dropped the "Devil" from its name and apparently off its back as well. This young group of prospects are out performing the Yankees and are neck and neck with the Red Sox. And they are making a run for the playoffs on a team payroll that is a fraction of that in Boston or New York. I think the Yankees are in real danger of not making the playoffs, which makes me very happy.
  
• Let's go Cubbies! - The Cubs are arguably the best team in baseball. They have a killer rotation, a lot of pop in the middle of their order, and have turned Kerry Wood into a solid closer. This could be the year they end their 100 year World Series drought.

What's NOT been great?

• My beloved Nationals - We have no power hitters, we have no ability to hit with RISP. Our bullpen is being overused to the point that skipper Manny Acta should be charged with war crimes involving torture. Of the 25 guys on our Opening Day roster, 20 of them have been on the disabled list at least once. And we are halfway through the season. That's almost IMPOSSIBLE. As a result, we stink to the tune of potentially losing 120 games this year. The only saving grace is that the Mariners stink slightly worse than us. And if we can cure the injury bug, I think we are two free-agent signings away from a .500 ballclub.
  
• Nationals fans - Most season ticket holders only show up to 25% of the games they bought, and when they do grace us with their presence, they show up in the 3rd inning. No one stands to cheer the team in the 9th inning until there are two outs and two strikes. There are often more away team fans in the stands than Nats fans. And just last weekend, I got fu*#&@$ heckled by a fellow Nats fan. My offense - she was annoyed that my brother and I were talking baseball trivia. Sorry lady, this is not the god damn opera. People don't even heckle like that in Miami! Washington is probably the WORST baseball town in America.

I can't wait to see what happens come October, both the good and the bad!

The 2008 Supreme Court Term: A Humor Roundup

The producer in charge of covering the Supreme Court for Fox News has written a very enjoyable column in the Weekly Standard. N.B. I don't read that rag on a regular basis (Bill Kristol can kiss my ass), so I must give a hat-tip to the good folks over at How Appealing.

Anyways, this article looks at some of the best examples of humor - from the justices and the lawyers - of this most current term. You really should click through and read it. I will merely reprint what I thought was the funniest exchange:

It is fair to say that the justices probably don't enter the courtroom with the express purpose of cracking jokes. But it does seem that Justice John Paul Stevens had his final question planned for the end of an argument that included considerable discussion of a decision the Court made in 1990.

Justice Stevens: One last question: We disagreed on parts of the Irwin opinion, but I take it you would agree with me that the government was particularly well represented in that case, wouldn't you? (Laughter.)

Mr. Stewart: The government could not have been better represented, Your Honor. (Laughter.)

Chief Justice Roberts: It is hard to understand how they could have lost the case. (Laughter.)

The reason for all of that laughter? Roberts was the government lawyer who argued and lost that case 18 years ago.

Hhhhhmmmm . . . Brandeis Bobble-Head Doll

Several days ago, I sat in a local establishment drinking iced tea with (I hope I may presume) a friend and a true scholar. In discussion, my friend happened to mention that Justice O.W. Holmes, Jr. had understood the influence of other justices on what he could get written into law. “They cut the balls off my opinions,” my friend told me that Holmes had said.

Intrigued, I went looking . . . and got distracted. First, I stumbled upon a collection of Holmes’ poetry, and then a reference to a remark Holmes had made about a policeman, fired for talking politics on the job, who claimed that his speech rights had been violated – “He may have a constitutionally protected right to talk politics, but he has no such right to be a policeman.”

So, what was the current matter that occasioned this reference? It was a recent opinion from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing a case for want of a statutory grant of authority to review the judicial decisions of state courts. This element of civil procedure is called the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and applies to federal courts, other than the U.S. Supreme Court, which are restricted from reviewing state court decisions unless granted authority to do so by Congress (e.g., see Terri Shiavo).

The case involved a man whose request for a law license was rejected by the Michigan Bar Association because of a report issued by its Character and Fitness Committee. According to the ABA Journal Law News Now, it seems the young man had stated before that committee that he “had little respect for the state court system, and federal courts are the guardians of the Constitution.” Furthermore, he operates a web site called StateBarWatch which describes itself as follows:

StateBarWatch is committed to exposing the widespread dishonesty and corruption within the State Bar of Michigan. We especially focus on the abuse of the “character and fitness” process by the Michigan Board of Law Examiners and the Michigan Bar Association.

In its report, the Character and Fitness Committee stated “We are concerned about providing a law license to someone who, even before he has handled his first case as a member of the bar, has effectively written off such a huge component of the justice system."

Wait a second! Doesn't that describe every law student 'round about his/her third year?

In response to the 6th Circuit’s decision that it lacked requisite jurisdiction, the gentleman stated that he plans to request review by the Supreme Court, noting:

I have faith in the Supreme Court, and in particular Justice John Paul Stevens, who is the true guardian of our constitutional rights.

Not just "A" guardian, but "THE TRUE" guardian. We need to test Stephens' midichlorian count.

But, what of this Rooker-Feldman Doctrine? It developed out of Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), as an effort to preserve the federal structure with respect to court systems. More recent decisions (District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)) have muddied the jurisprudential waters, so much so that a mock obituary of Rooker-Feldman was published by a lovely and irreverent little journal entitled The Green Bag: An Entertaining Journal of Law.

So, I checked it out.

And, they give away bobble-head dolls of Supreme Court justices.

And, I’m nominating them for a first ever Dicta-licious Award in the category of Humorous Law-Related Objects.

And, here is the one for this year:

















Notice that, as the annotation states, Justice Brandeis sits upon Engine #2499 – that which struck Harry Tompkins, “giving Brandeis the opportunity to declare for the Court that “there is no federal general common law.” Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 61 (1938) (overturning Swift v. Tyson)”

I desperately require one of these.

Foreign Children Running Wild! (part 2)

Earlier this week, the Dicta called out Canada and Sweden for coddling children. Now it seems we must add Germany to this list, courtesy of the good folks over at Lowering the Bar:

Germany plans to give vote to babies
By Harry de Quetteville in Berlin

Dozens of German politicians have tabled a new law to extend voting rights to babies, toddlers, children and teenagers.

The bill, which has won the cross-party backing of some heavyweight German politicians, would wipe away decades of "exclusion" and "discrimination" against minors, according to its supporters.

Currently the voting threshold in Germany is 18, with an exception in some states, where 16-year-olds are allowed to cast a ballot.

But that does not go far enough for the new law's backers, who want to ensure voting rights from cradle to grave.

First of all, am I being Punk'd? That is the only way this makes sense. I will beat the living snot out of you, Ashton, if you're behind this.

Hmmm...if German toddlers are eligible to vote...does that mean they are eligible for the draft? Holy s%$#, watch out, Poland!!

Seriously though (if it is even possible to get serious on this cracker-jack piece of legislation), how is it physically possible for an infant to vote. If he spits up once, he prefers the Christian Democratic Union candidate, and if he spits up twice, he is a Social Democratic Party supporter?

Has anyone even asked German children if they want to vote this early? If I were them I would rather be able to rent a porno or smoke a cigarette at age 12.

I suppose that if a political system was going to be held hostage, I would prefer the culprit to be Big Diapers in Germany to Big Oil and Big Tobacco in the United States.

You're not pro-choice. You're a freackin' baby!

Excellent Dicta! (part 4)

More 1960's pop culture references in appellate court decisions. This time it was from Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit, the woman who was too extreme for Presidnent Bush to nominate for the Supreme Court (and that's saying something).

From K&R Limited Partnership v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency:

Forty years ago Jimi Hendrix trilled his plaintive query: “Is this love, baby, or is it … [just] confusion?” JIMI HENDRIX, Love or Confusion, on ARE YOU EXPERIENCED (Reprise Records 1967). In this False Claims Act case, we face a similar question involving a mortgage subsidy program initiated in that era: Is this fraud, or is it …just confusion? K & R Limited Partnership says it is the former, alleging that during the last 15 years, MassHousing has knowingly submitted excessive claims for subsidy payments to the federal government. The district court granted summary judgment for MassHousing, United States ex rel. K & R Ltd. P’ship v. Mass. Hous. Fin. Agency, 456 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006), and we affirm because there is no genuine issue as to whether MassHousing knew its claims were false.

Kashmir over at Above the Law comments: "Though Hendrix is arguably 'cooler' than Dylan, we are declaring Roberts the winner of the musical reference contest since he actually cites Dylan's original meaning, while Brown uses the Hendrix quote for a turn of phrase. If she is able to somehow reference Hendrix's wicked on-stage distortion in a future opinion, we may reconsider."

I couldn't agree more. Rock on.

More fallout from Heller

Via Legal Antics and The List Universe: A gun with whiskey glass attachment! For the man who is too lazy to go hunting with a beer helmet. This contraption actually has a patent - #3450403.


How do you feel about the Second Amendment now?

Foreign Children Running Wild!

When I was a young lad, I was upset that there was a Father's Day and a Mother's Day but no Children's Day. I asked my father why that was, and his reply was "Every day is Children's Day." I never fully appreciated his wisdom until now.

If you are a child living in another country, every day REALLY IS Children's Day.

First, a couple weeks ago, the good folks at Quiz Law broke this story from Canada:

A father plans to appeal after a Quebec court ruled that he didn't have the right to punish his 12-year-old daughter by barring her from a school trip. Quebec Superior Court Judge Suzanne Tessier ruled Friday that the girl should be allowed to attend the three-day trip within Quebec this week. The girl's parents are divorced, and after she had an alleged row with her stepmother, her father barred her from going on a school trip to mark the class's graduation from elementary school, the newspaper reported. Last Wednesday, the father received a motion petitioning the court to overturn the punishment. Two days later, the judge ruled the punishment was too severe because the girl had already been sufficiently disciplined.

I have never been a fan of corporal punishment. Until now. It's time for a good ol'fashioned ass paddlin'. Not for the kid, mind you, but for the damn judge!

I understand judges need to protect the interests of children. God knows in this country, the Oregon Supreme Court had to intervene to preserve a boy's wee-wee. That sort of intervention is needed. But being grounded from a class trip. How do you say political correctness with a proper French Canadian accent? I think it is something like this: "Je suis une pussy."

Let us know travel across the pond to Sweden, where we find this whopper:

An eight-year-old boy has sparked an unlikely outcry in Sweden after failing to invite two of his classmates to his birthday party. The boy's school says he has violated the children's rights and has complained to the Swedish Parliament. The school, in Lund, southern Sweden, argues that if invitations are handed out on school premises then it must ensure there is no discrimination.

Are you out of your FREACKIN' MIND?!? I know the United States is not very good at cracking down on discrimination (this year the Supremes knowingly disenfranchised 40,000 Indiana voters from voting because it upheld the state's ludicrous photo ID law). But appealing to parliament over a birthday snub? That's bordering on Harrison Bergeron (RIP Mr. Vonnegut).

You know what, kids? Sometimes life sucks. Sometimes you get hurt. Sometimes you get grounded unfairly. Deal with it. American adults are supposed to be the most litigious people in the world. You're stealing our thunder!

So go to your rooms and think about what you've done.

Happy July 4th!

America, F%#$ Yeah!

Happy 4th of July, Britain!!

Check out the Gallery of Unfortunate 4th of July Postcards:

This one is my favorite.
My Caption:

Yank: "Sorry about attacking your Hessians at Christmas. That just wasn't cricket."
Brit: They were just Hessians, old man. So sorry about the Boston Massacre, Stamp Act, the whole Jamacian Rum thing, quartering soldiers, issuing those general warrants to search, the tea tax, dissolving your legislatures, denying you trial by jury, obstructing the administration of justice, sending out the Dragoons, and all that rot, what what.
Yank: All is forgiven, chum. And, we'll be there to save your ass in World War II.

Happy Independence Day! Let's not forget our other important national holiday on September 17th (Constitution Day).

Excellent Dicta! (part 3)

A grateful hat tip to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.

The Delaware Court of Chancery, as you might imagine, handles a lot of corporate law cases, which are usually dry, boring affairs. Well, Chief Judge William B. Chandler III (hereinafter referred to as "My Hero") decided to spice things up a little in a case about the merger of two major gaming companies, Activision and Vivendi. He begins his opinion with the following:

World of Warcraft, the market-leading massively multiplayer online role playing game, entices millions of paying subscribers to immerse themselves in a virtual online world. These subscribers create their own characters, and through these avatars they interact with other players, develop skills, create a unique jargon, join guilds and alliances, engage in battles, and embark on quests. . . . In some ways, perhaps, the world of Mergers and Acquisitions is a massively multiplayer role playing game as well. Like in World of Warcraft and other games, the participants in the M&A field take on certain roles, interact in their own community, hone specialized skills, and even develop a unique, somewhat curious vernacular. One particular quest in the world of M&A is disclosure litigation. In the instance of disclosure litigation presently pending before this Court, the world of M&A meets the World of Warcraft.

And then he concludes his opinion:

In the role-playing game that is this disclosure litigation, both sides have played their respective roles well....Like any game, this one has rules, and the most essential rule of disclosure is materiality. Because the plaintiff could not establish the materiality of its final three disclosure claims, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. . . .GAME OVER.

What can else can I say but w00t! This is truly dicta-licious.

P.S. Mary, this one is for you! XOXO

Excellent Dicta! (part 2)

Yesterday's installment was written by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Today's edition was written by a man who thinks he is the Chief Justice.

This opinion was written by Seventh Circuit Judge and noted ornithologist Richard Posner. The passage addresses the "ostrich instruction," which is when a judge tells a jury that a defendant who lacked certain knowledge can still be found guilty if the evidence shows he intentionally avoided knowing the truth (a la an ostrich hiding in the sand). Here's the quote from United States v. Black, et al., No. 07-4080, slip op. at 12-13 (7th Cir. June 25, 2008):

Three more issues need to be discussed. The first is whether an “ostrich” instruction should have been given. The reference of course is to the legend that ostriches when frightened bury their head in the sand. It is pure legend and a canard on a very distinguished bird. Zoological Society of San Diego, Birds: Ostrich, www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-ostrich.html (visited June 12, 2008) (“When an ostrich senses danger and cannot run away, it flops to the ground and remains still, with its head and neck flat on the ground in front of it. Because the head and neck are lightly colored, they blend in with the color of the soil. From a distance, it just looks like the ostrich has buried its head in the sand, because only the body is visible”). It is too late, however, to correct this injustice.

Great. Now zoos are going to feel compelled to submit amicus briefs to defend their animals. As if we don't already have enough amici already.

As the good folks over at Lowering the Bar note:

If ostriches were not seen as such a pushover, then there might be less ostrich-related violence, and the resulting increase in the self-confidence of male ostriches might lead to more ostriches. Which, I think we can all agree, would be a good thing.

Excellent Dicta!

As the name of our blog implies, we are obsessed with dicta. Earlier this term, the Supreme Court handed down Sprint v. APCC Services. All you need to know about this case is what the New York Times wrote: "Four pages into his dissent on Monday in an achingly boring dispute between pay phone companies and long distance carriers, John G. Roberts Jr., the chief justice of the United States, put a song lyric where the citation to precedent usually goes."

The payphone operators assigned their claims to respondents “for purposes of collection,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 114a; respondents never had any share in the amount collected. The absence of any right to the substantive recovery means that respondents cannot benefit from the judgment they seek and thus lack Article III standing. “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” Bob Dylan, Like A Rolling Stone, on Highway 61 Revisited (Columbia Records 1965).

Supreme Dicta has no problem with citing Bob Dylan in an appellate court decision. In fact, we encourage it. But this citation does present a problem with using original intent as an interpretive method.

I was always under the impression that the lyric read: "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." A Google search for that version of the lyric yields 1,800 hits. And this You Tube clip of Dylan singing the song in 1966 shows him using the word ain't (at the 5:50 mark):

So why was the lyric cited incorrectly? Probably because on Dylan's own website lists the lyric without the word "ain't."

So anyone who thinks that determining the framer's intent is easy, think again. Bob Dylan is the ONLY framer for this song, and even HE is saying contradictory things.

So to summarize this post...Scalia can bite me. Thomas too...actually I'm afraid either one might give me rabies.