Law Firm Basketball Team Uses a Ringer

One of my favorite West Wing episodes was the one where President Bartlett puts Rodney Grant (a character played by former NBA star Juwan Howard) on his pick-up basketball team.

What I never expected was that someone would actually use this tactic in real life. But then we get this gem of a story from the New York Law Journal.

A basketball team made up of attorneys from the New York firm Milberg Weiss hired a semi-pro basketball player as a ringer. The firm plays in the Lawyers Athletic League (the biggest oxymoron since "compassionate conservative"), which allows two "non-attorney" members on each team. I think that rule was intended to allow a paralegal or an attorney's spouse to participate, not to go out and recruit a Duquesne University almnus and veteran of the American Basketball Association, like Devone Stephenson.

But the petty vanity of the Milberg Weiss firm is not the funniest part of this story. The opposing team was not very nice to Mr. Stephenson (maybe because he is 6' 8" and, unlike the rest of the players, he has real basketball skills). They taunted him, fouled him four times in a row, and punched him in the face, fracturing his jaw.

And who did the opposing team work for? You guessed it, the Food Bank for New York City. Lawyers for a charitable organization who apparently don't know how to define the word charitable. For the record, when you punch a 6'8" man, you do know how to define the word cajones.

Mr. Stephenson sued, but was unsuccessful, because he had signed a liability waiver before the game (d'oh!).

The thing that surprised me the most is that the Lawyers Athletic League plays basketball. I would have thought that the league would be dedicated to sports more realistically suited for the legal profession: briefcase shotput or the 100-meter ambulance chase.

"Not Enough."

Morocco has a law that, to American ears, sounds quite jarring. In order to adopt a Moroccan baby, would-be parents have to convert to Islam. That seems kinda strange, but it appears that Moroccan authorities are satisfied with some sort of pro forma conversion. Whatever, man. I couldn't do it (at least, I think I couldn't do it - I try not to be categorical about choices with which I've never been faced), but if you can, more power to you.

Here's the deal. This couple in Britain had adopted a boy from a Moroccan orphanage, and wanted to get him a little brother from the same orphanage. The orphanage seemed okay with it, but local social services demanded that the parents prove they were "Muslim enough."

(h/t to Eugene Volokh - I know, I can't believe it either. )

Anyway, I have three points to make here. Two are about the issue itself, and the other's about Volokh's commentary.

First, I think Volokh is right that in the United States this action would be unconstitutional. First, the First Amendment pretty clearly prohibits the government from using information about your religion to determine whether you receive some government benefit - even if you're not entitled to the benefit, the withholding of it BECAUSE of your exercise of a First Amendment right is clearly unconstitutional. Pickering v. Board of Educ.. I am aware that the Census Bureau collects religious information, but that information is not used to determine the bestowal of any government benefit. Second, using American government actors to enforce Moroccan law would be unconstitutional unless there were some treaty between the United States and Morocco for that purpose. It is almost certain that such a treaty, should it exist, would have reservations that would insulate American workers from having to take action inconsistent with the Constitution.

Second, as a matter of policy, I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Let's consider, at essence, what the Surrey bureaucrats are complaining of. They could be suggesting that, to the extent that the adoptive parents' conversion to Islam was a sham at the time of the adoption, that they have actually perpetrated a fraud. Obtaining an adoption under fraudulent circumstances is certainly a crime, and although Morocco may be uninterested in prosecuting it, perhaps the United Kingdom would be.

I am not, in fact, suggesting that the adoption WAS fraudulent. Volokh raises the idea that the adoptive parents may have been initially sincere and changed their mind, or practicing a "highly reform" version of Islam. Both of those are legitimate arguments, and both would counsel in favor of finding that the adoption should go forward.

Finally, as noted, Volokh describes a liberal Islam as "highly reform." "Reform," of course, comes from "Reform Judaism," my own method of practice. I had a bizarre feeling seeing that word used to describe another religion. It's an interesting shorthand to help invoke a thought that describing the practice as "liberal" probably would not successfully invoke. But, it also implies that there is a movement of liberal Islam to match the Reform Judaism movement. Certainly, Volokh would deny such an implication, but it is there. And although I don't know much about Islam in Britain, I'm not convinced that such a movement exists. The truth is, and Volokh knows this, that terms matter. Terms of art are important. You have to use them correctly. "Reform" religion is a movement, with a group of common values and common goals - even if those values are as loose as "do what you like." Which is not Reform Judaism, incidentally. That movement is likely built around modernizing a faith that no longer seems relevant to its adherents' lives, but it is still a movement. Absent some evidence of cohesion in liberal Islam, I'm disinclined to call it "reform."

I know, it's just a nitpick. But Eugene Volokh is so rarely this careless in his language, I had to call him out.

Vote Terry Tate for Office Linebacker on Nov. 4

Chief Justice Joe Friday Roberts

Good gumshoe investigative reporting, Mr. Liptak.

From the Bench, a Flair for Hard-Boiled Crime Writing
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has a playful side, and it is steeped in pop culture. In June, he cited Bob Dylan. On Tuesday, in a dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an interesting criminal case, he described a street-corner drug deal in South Philadelphia in two paragraphs of clipped, hard-boiled sentences that owed something to Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler.

“The neighborhood?” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Tough as a three-dollar steak.”

The chief justice, joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, would have agreed to hear the case, Pennsylvania v. Dunlap, No. 07-1486, on a question that has divided state supreme courts: Is a hand-to-hand exchange of cash for a small object in a high-crime neighborhood enough to justify an arrest? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last year said no, saying the police officer, Sean Devlin, had not actually seen drugs.

In the more conventional part of his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that there was no explanation for what happened on the street “remotely as likely as the drug transaction Devlin believed he had witnessed.”

In noir mode, the chief justice put it this way: “Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.”

Stupid is as stupid does

Man I loves me some good ol' fashion public shaming. It is part of the rich history and tradition of American criminal justice, beginning with pillories and stocks. Schadenfreude might be a German word, but it's an American value.

Here's a more 21st century, post-modern approach to humiliation, in a case from Wisconsin:

A judge gives a man a choice: Spend time in jail or hold a sign saying "I was stupid."

Wednesday, he made that choice. He decided he'll hold the sign.

Judge Paul Lenz says over the years, he's handed out 20 or so similar sentences.

"It's something for them to think about," Lenz says. "Even if they don't choose to do it, they have to think about it because they have to think about whether they'll select the option. That means they'll think more about the consequences."

Consequences for cases like Shane McQuillan's. He was found guilty of criminal damage to property after he rammed his car into the closed gate at Eau Claire's Waste Water Treatment Plant in March.

McQuillan told an officer he had been drinking and was quote "just being stupid." Now, the 22 year old will hold a sign telling everyone "I was stupid".

First of all, too bad this guy wasn't from Sheboygan, right Seth?

The reporter attempted to contact Mr. McQuillan for comment on this story, and shockingly, he declined to comment. I guess he's giving the "being smart" approach a try.

And why don't we make those f#^*tards at Lehman Brothers, and AIG make a similar display outside the NYSE?

A long way from Mayberry

The Supremes are back! The New York Times reported on a humorous exchange at oral argument earlier this week on a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule case.

The first case concerned an Alabama man named Bennie Dean Herring, who was arrested, searched and found with methamphetamines and a pistol. Mr. Herring argued that the evidence should be thrown out because the officers who arrested him, from Coffee County, Ala., had relied on false information from the computer files of the police in neighboring Dale County.

That database showed an outstanding warrant for Mr. Herring’s arrest. In fact, the warrant had been withdrawn five months before...

“If you announce that police error is going to lead to the suppression of evidence,” [said Pamela S. Karlan, representing Mr. Herring], “the police will do a better job of maintaining their records.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that asking for perfect record-keeping might be unrealistic. “They probably don’t have the latest version of WordPerfect, or whatever it is,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “They are probably making do with whatever they can under their budget and doing the best they can.”...

“There’s not a Barney Fife defense to the violation of the Fourth Amendment,” said [Ms. Carlin].

Well put, Ms. Carlin. Snarky, but not too snarky. Are you a blogger?

McCain and Obama SCOTUS Short Lists

God bless the Daily Show. They are practitioners of cutting-edge journalism. They are the ONLY news source that has obtained short lists of Supreme Court nominees from both candidates. Enjoy:

McCain:

• Justice Janet Rogers Brown: George W. Bush managed to appoint Brown to the United States Court of Appeals despite significant Democratic opposition. McCain may try to elevate her to the Supreme Court.
• Sen. Fred Thompson: McCain owes him a favor, and besides, he must have picked up something from Law & Order.
• White House Gardener Mitch Henderson: A confused and disoriented McCain may appoint the first person he sees.

Obama:

• Sen. Hillary Clinton: Picking Clinton will reward her hard-fought primary battle with a coveted appointment, as well as isolate her from electoral politics forevermore.
• Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: Re-selecting Stevens will place a solid liberal on the court, while at the same time playing a hilarious joke on the 88-year-old justice, who desperately wants to retire.
• Judge Joe Brown: Obama is expected to try to diversify the Court, and the popularity of Brown's daytime TV show among members of Congress would ensure a swift Senate confirmation.

Happy First Monday!

Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!

OK I know this photo is old, but suck on it.

Today is the First Monday in October, which means the Supreme Court starts its new term this morning. w00t. If you are like me, and need to find a way to celebrate this august occasion, you should consider taking USA Today's Supreme Court Quiz.

It's nowhere near as cool as the Washington Post's quiz, which (tragically) has been abandoned. Leave me a comment with how many questions you got right. I got 9/10.

Want to geek out?

Obama, McCain, and Palin...as Shakespearean characters. Good stuff.

Video Du Jour

Skip ahead to the 1:00 mark. Fantastic stuff...