A Rare Football-Related Post:
Reader Matt Kita e-mails to say that "at the beginning of the UT-USC game last night, I predicted that it would be close and could have gone either way when Justice O'Connor did the coin toss."
A Rare Football-Related Post:
Reader Matt Kita e-mails to say that "at the beginning of the UT-USC game last night, I predicted that it would be close and could have gone either way when Justice O'Connor did the coin toss." |
It was a spectacular effort by both teams.
Hook-em Horns!
Houston Lawyer: the Tournament of Roses Assn. operates the parade and the game, and it is traditional for the parade grand marshal (O'Connor) to flip the coin.
Anyway, one knee was definitely down ... but the other wasn't.
I once heard a lecture where the speaker said that there was even a US Supreme Court case were the remedy was chosen by lots. The case was a complicated one dealing with slaves on a ship that had been captured once or twice. Many people claimed ownership of the slaves and the slaves sued for their freedom. As I recall the lecture, the court found that a certain number of the slaves were to remain slaves and some were to be freed. To decide which slaves were freed and which remained slaves, the court stated that lots were to be cast. I haven't read the case myself but was stunned to hear that casting of lots had survived that long. Can anyone confirm that story?
The case to which your lecturer probably referred was that of The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 (1825). That case involved a privateer who captured ships of several nations (U.S., Spain, and Portugal) and seized Africans from all of them. The Circuit Court originally designated a specific number of the surviving Africans to have been seized from the American vessel; since no one could prove which African came from which vessel, the Circuit Court said that it should be determined by lot. Id. at 69.
The Supreme Court reversed on much of the distribution, and appears to have specifically reversed on the lottery method of designation: "The individuals who compose this number must be designated to the satisfaction of the Circuit Court." Id. at 128. Of course, the Circuit Court was the one that originally came up with the lottery method, so it may have had a low threshold of satisfaction.
John Quincy Adams discussed this at length in his 1841 argument before the Supreme Court in the Amistad case. See here at 111-115.
"Todd posts about football, making this not so rare."
That's not true. Todd posts about the Steelers, who bear very little resemblance to an actual football team...
1) Went to Stanford Law. Stanford played Michigan in the first Rose Bowl (though Stanford got spanked by 49-0 and forfeited in the third quarter).
2) She was born in Texas.
Thanks so much. That surely must be the case. Regarding sortilege, perhaps it stands for nothing more than the fact that in the early 19th century a few judges still felt it was a valid legal process in extreme circumstances.
Prof. Zywicki not being on this thread to defend West Pa's own, I'll ask you: what makes "the Steelers [] bear very little resemblance to an actual football team"? Is it the fact that they've been in the playoffs eight out of the last eleven years, or instead that they're the winningest team in the NFL over that period?
Explain.
1. Steelers made Larry Brown a Super Bowl MVP
2. BENGALS?! They got obliterated by the BENGALS!!!
3. The Tommy Maddox era
4. I'm a DALLAS fan. Superbowls IX, X, XIII, XIV never happened. (Esp. X, and XIII)
5. Ketchup Stadium
6. Unmanly fascination with bathroom linen products
7. Asymmetrical helmet designs
(Even your pseudonym recognizes the inherent superiority of America's team)
Well we'll see who is superior when the Steelers and Cowboys meet in the Super Bowl this year. Oh yeah, a tean first has to make the playoffs in order to make the Super Bowl...
Besides, #7 is a plus, not a minus (although I definitely grant you #3).