I’m usually not wild about attempts at wit in headlines — so many are cliche, or otherwise fall flat — but this one struck me as quite good. From Drew Combs (The Am Law Daily):
Where There’s a Will: Estate Planning Group Bolts Weil for McDermott
In move that spells the end for Weil, Gotshal & Manges’s decades-old estate planning practice, the chair of the firm’s trusts group, Carlyn McCaffrey, and six colleagues have decamped to McDermott Will & Emery, which announced the moves in a statement released Thursday…. [...]
Fox 411 reports:
Everything Britney Spears wanted to know about sex, she learned from her mom.
And at a very young age.
“I was 12 years old,” Spears tells OUT magazine about when she asked about the birds and the bees. “I was confused and disgusted.”
Well, duh. Who wouldn’t be disgusted by the birds and the bees? Here’s what the conversation probably sounded like:
“Now, daughter, think of yourself as a bee. There’s a 99.99% chance that you’ll never get any, and instead of developing an extensive reproductive system, you’ll get to have a stinger and a venom pouch. But there’s a tiny chance that you’ll be a queen bee, which means you’ll be really huge, and all these male bees will have sex with you.
“Now if you are the queen, and all the boys have sex with you, their penises will fall off and stay in your body. Then they’ll die. Oh, and before one of them has sex with you, he’ll have to make sure he take the other guy’s penis out of you first.
“No wait, daughter, actually, think of yourself as a bird. That means you’ve got a single cloaca, through which your urine, feces, and eggs go out, and the male’s semen comes in. Just remember that, and you’ll be OK.”
To become a member of a circuit Bar, I just had to affirm “that I will demean myself as an attorney.” But at least I have to demean myself “uprightly and according to law.” [...]
Over at Concurring Opinions, G.W. lawprof Dan Solove has some fun with the Playmobil airline screening playset.
UPDATE: 21st century Gadsen Flag(H/T Jacob Hornberger via Facebook) [...]
Interesting race in Connecticut. One candidate’s adult life has been spent in a profession in which testosterone-infused alpha male types engage in well-choreographed bombast for the benefit of the credulous masses.
And the other has spent her career in professional wrestling. [...]
Froom the comments section on Nate Silver’s 538 blog, where he notes a 1 in 4 chance of the GOP taking the Senate:
October is known for its surprises, but I would not be surprised if the electorate became more informed about the facts, and the distortions prevalent on both Network and Cable TV, and of course Talk Radio, as we approach this crucial election. And please don’t underestimate the effect of C-span.org on independent voters, who watch Washington Journal regularly with passion.
The combination of earnest hopefulness that the voters will “come to their senses”, apparent ignorance of the fact that “swing” voters tend to be by far the least informed part of the electorate, and the pairing of “passion” with “Washington Journal,” a show only slightly less dull than watching professional golf on t.v., made me laugh out loud. [...]
With lots of media attention focused on Judge Walker’s SSM decision, I decided to write a generic op-ed that any paper or website can use. Just pick the right word you want in parenthesis — conservatives pick the first word, and liberals pick the second.
FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION
Judge Walker’s decision on same-sex marriage is a reminder of the proper role of judges in our society. Above all else, judges should follow the Constitution. For that reason, Judge Walker’s decision should be [condemned/celebrated].
Judge Walker showed from the outset of the Prop 8 case that he had one priority: To [subvert/follow] the Rule of Law. His efforts to televise the trial, later overturned by the Supreme Court, show his true intent. Judge Walker wanted to televise the Prop 8 litigation to make sure it would be a [show trial/teaching moment] for the advocates of same-sex marriage. Although the Supreme Court did overturn his decision, Judge Walker pressed on. He never backed down. It is hard to believe that he is a Bush appointee — but this is San Francisco, after all.
Now the case heads to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit is a famously [lawless/independent] circuit. The next stop is the Supreme Court, which will probably divide 5-4 in this case. The swing vote is Justice Kennedy. Although his vote is often unpredictable, Justice Kennedy has tended to vote with the Supreme Court’s [activist/moderate] wing in cases related to homosexuality. We hope that Justice Kennedy rejects [liberal elite opinion/bigotry], follows the Constitution, and [upholds/rejects] Prop 8.
Public opinion about same-sex marriage is changing. The Supreme Court should recognize this and [step aside/ speed it along]. The choice is clear: It
I bet if I had some Adderall, I would have finished this manuscript revision hours ago, or anyway, would stay up all night in a state of ecstatic concentration and get it done :(
Citing the drug’s extensive contributions to almost every field of academia, Harvard conferred an honorary doctoral degree upon a 30-day supply of Adderall during the university’s 359th commencement exercises Thursday.
Resting on a wooden dais throughout the ceremony, the synthetic psychostimulant was warmly praised by Harvard president Drew Faust, who called Adderall a stirring testament to what the human mind can achieve when chemically altered by a combination of dextroamphetamine and racemic DL-amphetamine salts.
“Harvard is proud to honor the tremendous merits of Adderall, without which many of you would not be sitting here today,” Faust said in her opening address to the nearly 1,900 unblinking and intensely focused students receiving their diplomas. “I don’t think I’m exaggerating matters when I say that Adderall has been an inspiration to us all.”
The psychologically addictive drug then received resounding applause from the assembled graduates, with many jumping to their feet, clapping in near unison for 25 straight minutes, temporarily forgetting where they were, and then grinding their teeth in celebration of the well-deserved honor.
A friend of mine who works in the intelligence community brought this jewel to my attention. In January 1944, the Office of Strategic Services created a secret document entitled “Simple Sabotage Field Manual” (available here as a free audio book) to assist operatives in disrupting the Axis war effort. It contains the expected stuff about starting fires and shorting electrical systems. But the most enlightening stuff comes at pages 28-31, in a section entitled “General Interference with Organizations and Production.” There, we learn that our secret weapon against the Nazi war machine was . . . bureaucracy. Note these ingenious plots:
(a) Organizations and Conferences
(1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
* * *
(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible–never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision–raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
More nuggets after the jump.
In other words, the war would have ended a year earlier if we could have just parachuted the Executive Secretariat of some executive agencies behind enemy lines in 1942. But probably the paperwork wasn’t in order.
I don’t want to oversell [...]
Two men are talking on a Pyongyang subway train:
“How are you, comrade?”
“Fine, how are you doing?”
“Comrade, by any chance, do you work for the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party?”
“No, I don’t.”
“Have you worked for the Central Committee before?”
“No, I haven’t.”
“Then, are any of your family members working for the Central Committee?”
“Then, get away from me! You’re standing on my foot!”
Justice Breyer is famously willing to look to foreign law for ideas on how to resolve legal questions, saying that there’s no reason not to look at how foreign judges have solved sticky problems when he is confronted with similar issues.
So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that Justice Breyer looks to foreign practice in criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision, effective tomorrow, not to permit visitors to enter through the Court’s front doors (they will still be permitted to leave through it). Quoth SGB:
To my knowledge, and I have spoken to numerous jurists and architects worldwide, no other Supreme Court in the world–including those, such as Israel’s, that face security concerns equal to or greater than ours–has closed its main entrance to the public.
With Justice Stevens having announced his retirement, all eyes now turn to President Obama’s purported short list: Elena Kagan, Merrick Garland, and Diane Wood. Obama will have a tough choice, as he is picking from three very different candidates. No matter who he picks, his selection is likely to break down some major barriers.
First, consider the broad range of choices Obama faces. His shortlist consists of former law clerks to a wide range of the liberal Justices of the 1970s and 1980s. Obama must choose between a Brennan clerk (Garland), a Marshall clerk (Kagan), and a Blackmun clerk (Wood). Further, the shortlisters differ dramatically in that they had different high-level positions in the Clinton Administration. Will Obama pick the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (Garland), the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division (Wood), or the former Associate White House Counsel (Kagan)?
Even if Obama decides on a former academic, he has to pick which kind of resume he wants. For example, does he pick the woman who was a full-time law professor at the University of Chicago from 1981 to 1993 (Wood)? Or does he pick the woman who was a full-time law professor at the University of Chicago from 1991 to 1995 (Kagan)? Obviously, these are big choices.
No matter who he chooses, Obama will continue to break new ground, or at least help bolster some of the low numbers of people of certain arguably underrepresented backgrounds on the current Court. For example, Elena Kagan would become only the second former Harvard professor presently on the Court (joining Justice Breyer). Either Kagan or Wood would be only the second Chicago professor (joining Justice Scalia). Further, Merrick Garland would be only the second Justice on the Court who went to Harvard College; [...]