This explains a lot...

Via Courtoons.

I love me some recounts!

Think that election law can't be hilarious? Think again. From today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune (which has done a fantastic job covering the Coleman/Franken recount):

The board clipped along at a rapid pace in its review of challenged ballots, aided by the withdrawal of challenges, but more time was needed for the study a handful of quizzical ballots, leading to some lighter moments.

One Bemidji voter blackened the oval for Franken, but also put an X through the oval and scribbled "Lizard People" on the write-in line.

" 'Lizard People' is not a genuine write-in" because there's no such person, Elias said.

"You don't know that there's not someone named 'Lizard People.' You don't," Magnuson said.

"You're right, you don't know," Trimble chimed in.

"Isn't 'People' plural? How can you have an individual named 'People?' " asked Ramsey County District Judge Edward Cleary, a board member.

After more back and forth, the board finally sided with Trimble and ruled it an overvote, not a vote for Franken.

Franken did better on a Sauk Rapids ballot that was marked for him but had "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "FSM" written in other places. He also won a challenge on a Mankato ballot on which the voter had blackened his oval but extended his name to read "Al Frankenstin."

Trimble argued that the voter hadn't cast his vote for Franken, but for someone named Frankenstin. "The candidate is still identified as the candidate of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party," Elias countered. The board voted 3-2 to award the vote to Franken.

Glenn Beck, noted constitutional law scholar

How is it possible to be dumber than Joe the Plumber? Glenn Beck finds a way... (skip to the 1:30 mark)

I don't know whether to sigh in frustration or laugh with contempt. Maybe both.

A Sad Day

• The Infield Fly Rule is neither a rule of law nor one of equity; it is a rule of baseball. Since the 1890's it has been a part of the body of the official rules of baseball. In its inquiry into the common law origins of the rule, this Aside does not seek to find a predecessor to the rule in seventeenth-century England. The purpose of the Aside is rather to examine whether the same types of forces that shaped the development of the common law also generated the Infield Fly Rule.

The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule, 123 Penn L. Rev. 1474 (1975)

Such is the opening to the funniest law review article ever written. The student note was penned by William Stevens, who passed away on Monday at age 60. This law review article was so witty and simultaneously informative that Mr. Stevens earned an obituary in the New York Times. According to the obit: "It continues to be cited by courts and legal commentators. It is taught in law schools. It is credited with giving birth to the law and baseball movement, a thriving branch of legal studies devoted to the law and its social context."

And I'm not kidding about the hilarity either. The first footnote comes after the first word of the piece ("the") and Mr. Stevens felt compelled to reference the page containing the word "the" in the Oxford English Dictionary. The very next time he employs the word "the" he inserts another footnote, which reads: "Note 1, supra."

In a footnote about the origins for common law, he writes: "For a discussion of origins, see generally Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (1927); Genesis 1:1-2:9. But see even more generally Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968); R. Ardrey, African Genesis (1961); C. Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871); C. Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)."

And his summary of the history of the infield fly rule in baseball is simply fantastic. As a huge baseball fan myself, I am amazed that Mr. Stevens actually looked at articles from the 1893 Baltimore Sun to do his research.

In short, I could run my mouth on this blog for a hundred years and never come close to penning something this irreverent and insightful. If you have Lexis or Westlaw, please look up this unique piece of scholarship!

God Save the Commonwealth of Kentucky! (because the government doesn't intend to)

Here's the most outrageous headline of last week: "Atheists sue to take God out of state's terrorism law" (from the December 2 Lexington Herald-Leader). WTF, you might ask? Here the details:

An atheists-rights group is suing the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security because state law requires the agency to stress "dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."

Edwin Kagin, a Boone County lawyer and the national legal director of American Atheists, said he was appalled to read in the Herald-Leader last week that state law establishes praising God — and installing a plaque in God's honor — as the first duty of the Homeland Security Office.

The requirement to credit God for Kentucky's protection was tucked into 2006 homeland security legislation by state Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a Southern Baptist minister.

The plaintiffs ask for the homeland security law to be stripped of its references to God. They also ask for monetary damages, claiming to have suffered sleeping disorders and "mental pain and anguish."

On one level, this lawsuit is pretty pointless. You're losing sleep over this? What drama queens. Besides, there are numerous entanglements of religion and government (from "In God We Trust" to the Pledge of Allegiance) that the Supreme Court sustains on grounds they are de minimumus, i.e. they are so insignificant that no one should give a s&^#. Even the Declaration of Independence ends with the phrase: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

What disturbs me isn't the First Amendment problems, it's the homeland security problems. The Commonwealth of Kentucky has engaged in celestial outsourcing for its homeland security needs. It reminds of a satirical Salon article from 2001, entitled "Bush Unveils Faith-Based Missile Defense." The parody quotes President Bush as saying: "Faith-based missile defense will be constitutional and fully consistent with the way the Founding Fathers expected this great nation to handle ICBM threats." There is one small difference, of course. In Kentucky, this isn't a witty satire, it's actual government policy!!

From a pragmatic perspective, this is retarded, but I think theologically this strategy is also incredibly stupid. First of all, if the Religious Right is correct, God might actually want to cause terrorism, not prevent it, because it would cause the apocalypse needed to bring the second coming of Christ.

But from a more reasonable theological position, I don't believe that God keeps his people safe by swooping in on some magical horse just before an attack. Rather, God keeps his people safe by endowing us with intelligence necessary to formulate a terrorism prevention plan and bless us with the resources necessary to fund it...unless you live in Kentucky. Here's a clip from the West Wing that better explains this argument (skip to the 3:15 mark, unless you are bored at work):

Congratulations, Kentucky! Thanks to Governor Blagojevich, the American people are too focused on Illinois to realize how badly things are fu$#@& up in the Bluegrass State.

Learned Hand? Meet Learned Foote.

As many of you may know, I am mildly obsessed with Judge Learned Hand, arguably the greatest jurist never to win a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Which is why I nearly fell out of my chair laughing reading this post over at the Wall Street Journal's excellent Law Blog.

Fred Foote, a New York attorney, shares my obsession with Judge Hand. Thus he named his first-born son Learned Foote. Seriously.

Hilarity ensues.

Happy Repeal Day!

It's time to raise a glass and toast...the U.S. Constitution! It was on this date 75 years ago that the 21st Amendment was ratified. For a more thorough look at this historic occasion (and a list of suggested toasts), please go here.

God Bless the Onion