Spring Break

They've unleashed college students on the rest of the world for a week. Watch out. For me, I'm in San Francisco for a day and then in Tahoe for a week. I probably won't be blogging much, unless one of my techno-geek friends brings a computer to Tahoe. Could happen.

How's my trip so far? Well, I'm in San Francisco, and my luggage is in Dallas. So I got that going for me. Which is nice.

Civil rights in an uncivil place

It's common practice for state prisons to segregate prisoners along racial lines. They've found, and it makes some sense, that gang violence is a lot more common when the prison population is racially mixed. When everyone is separated, apparently everyone is safer.

So what's more important, prisoner safety or equal rights?

I should mention that I phrase it as "equal rights" because that's really what it boils down to. It might be tempting to think: "How can their rights be unequal when the only thing that's happening is racial segregation? It's not like any one racial group is getting more food or less gym time. Their rights are the same." It's a fair argument, and maybe, just maybe, it might actually be true in this specific case. But I doubt it. What we learned in Brown v. Board of Education is that "Separate But Equal" is, pretty much by definition, impossible. It's only equal -- and I mean truly equal -- when everyone is lumped together. Even in prison.

Anyway, the Supreme Court decided Wednesday that equal rights will conquer all, except under the most extraordinary circumstances. I suppose I agree.

For your consideration

What are those tricksters at FOX News up to now? Oh, just doctoring AP stories. What, is that bad?

Washington as a microcosm

A Republican state Senator from eastern Washington wants his part of the state to secede, and become the 51st state. We heard similar threats from blue states after the 2004 presidential election. It was dumb then, and it's dumb now. When will this blue/red crap end?

Time-killer

Look at the top right corner of the page: the "Next Blog" button. If you'd like to take a look at the collective conscience of Internet users, press that button a few times, and find out where you go. It's sometimes a little scary.

More on Kelo

The Court heard oral arguments today in the Kelo case. My girl Dahlia Lithwick has a recap on Slate.

Property geeks unite

Tomorrow the Court will hear arguments about a big property rights case: Kelo v. City of New London. (Warning: this is not an exciting case. At all.) Basically, the Fifth Amendment gives the government the power to invoke "eminent domain" -- the gov't can take private land as long as it's for "public use" and the landowner is compensated fairly.

Courts have long struggled with what "public use" exactly means. Some examples are easy: schools, freeways, and parks are all for public use. But what if a city wants to seize private property so it can attract a major corporation (like, say, Chrysler) to build a plant there? It's argued that this plant will provide local jobs and help stir the economy. But it's also a private company. Is it "public use"? Courts go back and forth on this. If it's not a public use, the landowners should get their land back.

This is more or less what's going on in the current case. The Court is going to try to add clarity to what it is to be of "public use." SCOTUSblog has a nice recap of the facts and relevant case law, so I won't copy it here. Did anyone read this far? Maybe you're a property geek too.

P.S. CNN has an article about it too.

Sad

Hunter S. Thompson killed himself. There was no one else like him.

Movie reviews

I've taken in a few movies lately, all good.

Million Dollar Baby: a damn good boxing movie, with impeccable acting from Eastwood, Freeman, and especially Hilary Swank. Give her the Oscar now. It's a lot of fun to watch Eastwood and Freeman act together, and it makes me want to go back and watch "Unforgiven" again. This movie gets seriously depressing after the second act, though. Seriously depressing.

Friday Night Lights: a very good high school football movie. Not over-the-top. Seemed like an honest portrayal of what high school football is like in west Texas. The story features a couple characters who peaked in life when they were high school football players... I guess I can be thankful that I wasn't all that great of a football player, so the only direction for me to go was up. Thank heaven I didn't peak as a skinny backup tight end with 5.0 speed.

Garden State: the kids here love this movie. It speaks to the "crap, what do I do with my life now" part of your mid-twenties that most college graduates go through. It doesn't try to provide any overly simplified answers or mushy inspiration, and the dialogue isn't improbably clever like in "Reality Bites." The kid from "Scrubs" did good.

The Bush recordings

There's nothing we like better than tape-recordings of our presidents. Love 'em. The New York Times has an article about secret Dubya recordings, and they're surprisingly boring. I thought they'd have been juicier, considering the alleged skeletons in his closet. Oh well. My question: why is this Wead guy bringing them out now?

If you're pressed for time and don't want to read the long NYT article, here's a Yahoo recap.

Victory for Bush spin machine

President Bush signed a law today that will make class-action lawsuits more difficult to win. The logic behind this escapes me, but the spinning doesn't.

Americans are funny. We consider our society to be overly litigious, but we only say that when we have no claims of our own to make. As soon as we have a problem, we want the courts to be there to make us whole again. In the mean time, we think that nothing bad will ever happen to us, and we won't need the courts. We think that people who sue are just after the easy buck... it's the lazy man's way to make money, instead of going out and earning it.

The Bush administration seized on this mentality in bailing out its best friend: corporations. Bush keeps the focus on the "greedy lawyers" and the "activist judges." He refers to "overly generous juries," but We The People keep forgetting that we are juries. Every time a plaintiff wins a big verdict, it is people like you and me who decide that the plaintiff has been harmed so much that s/he deserves compensation.

Yes, I recognize that frivolous lawsuits exist. But our courts -- our judges and our juries -- are designed to filter out and dismiss these on their own. We don't need any broad, sweeping legislation when the only way to tell whether a lawsuit is frivolous is on a case-by-case basis. Let the courts decide what's frivolous and what's not.

So I understand how this bill got signed, and how the administration got political support for it -- greedy lawyers are bad... juries are gullible... lawsuits in general are just annoying. But damn if I don't understand why everyday people really think this is a good idea. Corporations can sleep better at night knowing that no matter how badly they screw over a class of people, the government -- the people's government -- will be there to put a cap on their liability.

If there was one thing I could fix, it would be the American citizen's enmity for the judicial system. It's the only branch of the government specifically created to protect the rights of the little guy, but the little guy just doesn't trust it.

A new career high

Tonight I bowled a 201. My game ended with five consecutive strikes. Both of these are career bests.

Of course, my other two games tonight were a 132 and a 98. So I think I've used up all my luck... If I get run over by a bus tomorrow, you'll know why.

Roe v. Wade is back... kinda

I don't think this will go anywhere, but it's worth noting. Norma McCorvey, better known throughout history as "Jane Roe," now regrets her role in Roe v. Wade. She is trying to reverse the outcome of the case through Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Fifth Circuit already denied the motion, but now she's trying to get Supreme Court review. Like I said, it's highly unlikely that anything will happen, but it's an interesting historical footnote.

More on Grokster

If you're at all interested in the Grokster case, there's a nice article about it on FindLaw.

Hockey is dead

The NHL season is officially over. You probably don't care. I don't care either. But I live in a place where a lot of people actually care quite a lot. Some of my friends are pretty mad. And I'll admit, playoff hockey is pretty sweet. I'll miss that.

Indian gaming rages on

Latest figures show that Indian gaming created $18.5 billion in revenue last year, almost double what Nevada gaming made ($9.88 billion). As my Indian Law professor said last semester, "I'm not a fan of Indian gaming, but I like it a lot more than Indian poverty."

Gaming is certainly doing a lot to pull American Indian tribes toward economic prosperity... and it's funny what gaming has done for mainstream America's image of what an American Indian is. We're slowly evolving from the image of the stupid, primitive, warlike Indian to the greedy, boozing, tax-evading Indian. Great.

Among those whom we can thank for encouraging the greedy image is the Governator... man, what an idiot this man is. Please, Californians, no more voting like schmucks, okay?

P.S. If the reasons are unclear why Indian tribes are exempt from state and local taxes, I'd be happy to talk about it. The Schwartzenegger propaganda machine has done a good job presenting a biased, one-sided, historically ignorant portrayal of it.

The Rehnquist rumor

Nobody really thinks he's Deep Throat, but here's an article debunking the rumor anyway.

That's all I have for today. My free time was absorbed watching the Kansas-Texas Tech double-overtime game. Sorry Wally.

The Grammy's

The Grammy's has become a pretty good show. Live performances tonight by Green Day, Kanye West, and Melissa Ethridge were really good. In case you're far from a college campus, all the kids are listening to Kanye West these days. If you saw him tonight, you know why.

I was rooting for Green Day and Kanye West for the Album of the Year, but Ray Charles won. I can live with that. My mom really likes that album. Ray's not done winning, either; Jamie Foxx has got the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up.

West Wing - Lessig followup

No one is interested in this except me, but here are a couple reactions to the West Wing featuring Larry Lessig:

Lessig himself. The comments are also good.
Another professor.

I think it's cool. Sorry.

Sorry, you're wrong

I was at an Ann Arbor nightlife establishment tonight. Someone said to me, "You know you can't dance, right?"

Obviously, I disagreed.

Doh.

Down goes Grunfeld. Chris Hernandez is probably the team's MVP, but Grunfeld was the team's best scorer, and will be sorely missed. This one hurts.

Steroids

I understand why people are so upset about steroids, but I can't help but think it's an overreaction. Somehow we've come to see steroid use as the worst kind cheating -- worse than corked bats and vasaline-balls -- and reason to apply asterisks to every Barry Bonds record. I just don't see it.

Steroids are not banned because they give players a competitive advantage; MLB is not trying to keep Bonds and Hank Aaron on a level playing field. Instead, MLB bans steroids because they are potentially harmful to the athletes. That's it.

There are myriad other legal supplements and medicines available today that Maris didn't have in his day, but we don't equate them with cheating. Medical procedures, like Tommy John surgery and Schilling Ankle Suturing, have not been available to all pitchers of all generations, but we see John and Schilling as medical marvels, not cheaters.

But steroids? We say they are an affront to the entire history of the sport. I concede that these substances are currently illegal, and Bonds IS cheating current players who play by the rules. But to say he's cheating Maris and Aaron is taking it too far.

It's not fair to pick and choose which of our many technological advancements are particularly repugnant to the game's history, especially considering that if steroids had no negative side effects, they would be perfectly legal. Steroids are bad for Barry, not for baseball.

Is he cheating? Yeah. Is he cheating history? No way.

Getting what they deserve, part two

Shockingly, farmers are shaken by Bush's subidy plan. Holy crap, no one could have seen this coming.

When they are eventually forced to sell the family farm, at least they can take comfort in knowing that gays aren't getting married. Yay values!

Briefly

It's been a long day, and I'm tired, but DB gets mad when I don't post on weekdays. So here's a bullet-point entry:

• I bowled a 163 tonight, and I'm happy about it.
• Here's more on Rehnquist, but it's not about what you think it's about.
• My girl Dahlia Lithwick is back, talking about how the Ward Churchill controversy is a reflection of the tenure system.

Happy Friday, everyone.

Great Scott, Marty!

On tonight's West Wing, Christopher Lloyd (!) played a law professor named Lawrence Lessig, who is a real guy. Lessig is an IP savant, "Wired" magazine contributor, and a professor at Stanford Law School. He looks nothing like "Doc Brown." I don't know why WW did this, but it's cool for Lessig to get such props... he's at the forefront of the charge to lessen copyright restrictions (through such means as the Creative Commons, which happens to be what this blog uses for copyright protection).

Why is it good to lessen copyright restrictions? That's a topic for another day.

Rehnquist's replacement

There's a thorough article on Bloomberg today, postulating on possible replacements for Chief Justice Rehnquist. There are a couple things about articles like this that bother me.

First, the word "conservative" gets thrown around a lot, but I don't think it applies well to most judges' voting records. For example, the Bloomberg article would have you believe that Justices Scalia and Thomas are as conservative as it gets, but I don't think that's right. The results of their holdings may coincide with conservative values, but I think that's mostly a coincidence. (Some may disagree.)

Scalia and Thomas are originalists. They allow the text of the Constitution, and what they believe the Framers meant by the text, to be the basis of their decisions. They would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example, not because they are Pro-Life righties, but because the Constitution does not have a provision explicitly making abortion legal (and states therefore have every right to make it illegal). But this works both ways. You might recall that Scalia was the fifth and deciding vote in the opinion that said flag-burning was a protected form of free speech.

Scalia made this very point when he visited the law school last semester. He said something like, "Do you think I like those sandal-wearing bearded weirdos?" No, he doesn't. But he sticks to the Constitution, conservative or not. Last month, Slate made a good case for why Nino should be Chief Justice. It's not the worst idea out there. (Yes, I know I get everything from Slate.)

Which brings me to the second thing I don't like about articles like the one in Bloomberg. It makes it seem like the Chief Justice spot is an especially big deal. Well, it's not. The Chief Justice gets one vote, just like all the Associate Justices. As we speak, Justice Breyer has just as much say in an opinion as Chief Justice Rehnquist. The only differences are:

• The Chief gets to select who will write the majority opinion (if the Chief is voting in the majority) or the dissenting opinion (if s/he is in the dissent).
• The Chief swears in the president at the inauguration.
• The Chief presides over impeachment proceedings.
• The Chief gets to put those frilly little stripes on his robe. But that's optional.
  

That's it.

So the worry shouldn't be about who is going to be the next Chief. The bigger worry is who will be the next member of the Court.

Oh, I see. Got it. Thanks George.

"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."—Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005
From Slate

Your Daily Fable

A friend of mine writes this: http://dailyfable.blogspot.com/

Enjoy.

She shouldn't have to give to the Stanford Fund anymore

Alright alright.

Seven-foot twins choose Stanford:

"Stanford has been their dream, so it's a dream come true," said their mother, a 1971 Stanford grad.

Let's all make a pact. If we ever have seven-foot twins, we're sending them to Stanford. I don't care where you went to undergrad. And I'm talking to you too, Ben and Kim. Your seven-foot twins will have a mad crossover.

Poll: Majority of Americans get what they deserve

There is a new poll that says more than two-thirds of Americans believe the wealthy should do more to bolster Social Security. Hmmm. Let's see. Which political party tends to have the wealthy pick up the slack for the rest of the country? Which political party just ran a campaign saying the rich would pay more than everybody else? Which political party just LOST the national election? Oh well... at least Iraqis can vote. That will be a great relief when everyone over 65 is bankrupt.

Sheesh.

Warning: this game may ruin your life

If you feel like wasting the rest of your day, play this game.

For you Firefox users

Surprisingly, there's a flaw that affects the non-IE browsers. Weird. Check it out.

The mystery of courage

This semester I'm taking a class called Bloodfeuds. It's a crazy class, and only peripherally related to law. It's focused in 9th-11th century Iceland, and that society's ways of dealing with honor, retribution, compensation, and death. It's a class that's completely unique to the Michigan Law School, and it was one that I wanted to be sure I took before I graduated. It's totally fun.

The professor, William Ian Miller, is one of a kind. He has a J.D., sure, but he has all sorts of other degrees and interests, and he writes books that just make you think. Here is a cool interview he gave to Salon.com a few years ago about his book, The Mystery of Courage. Really cool guy.

Perhaps the biggest case of the year

In March the Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments in the case of MGM v. Grokster. MGM is representing musicians, filmmakers, and other copyright holders against Grokster, the P2P filesharing company. It's a fascinating case in many ways.

You might be thinking, hey, didn't the courts already decide that filesharing is illegal? Didn't they already kill Napster? The answers are: sometimes and kinda. Clear as mud, eh?

First, courts have decided that filesharing of copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder is illegal -- so yes, every time you download a song from KaZaA or Grokster without permission, you are breaking the law. But courts have also recognized that there are times when the copyright holder wants his/her material to be shared. For example, one of the ways the band Wilco got big was by purposely spreading its songs across the Internet. Not all filesharing is bad.

Second, the Ninth Circuit did put a smackdown on Napster for contributory infringement. Napster knew that infringing was going on, and it helped make it happen because it ran everything through central servers. But from the ashes, several other P2P clients have sprouted to take advantage of the things that were as yet still legal.

This is exactly what Grokster has done. Grokster doesn't have a central server, and all its users are anonymous. The Ninth Circuit, which already ruled in Grokster's favor in MGM v. Grokster, said that because some legal filesharing was going on, and because Grokster did not have the ability to monitor its users, it could not be liable for contributory infringement. Grokster could live on. Make no mistake, its users were still liable for copyright infringement (including, apparently, 83-year-old dead women) but Grokster itself was not breaking any laws.

Enter the Supreme Court, which will reconsider the Ninth Circuit's reasoning. It will be interersting to see what they do with this case, since they are not exactly the most technologically hip group of people on the planet. I don't think 84-year-old Justice Stevens has an iPod.

This case isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. It seems pretty obvious that, no matter how the Ninth Circuit wants to frame it, there's some wrongdoing going on with Grokster. Laws are being broken there. At the same time, there's a real scare that the court might throw the baby out with the bathwater if it makes a blanket ruling against P2P filesharing. The Court almost made this mistake in the early 80s, when it narrowly ruled (5-4) in Sony v. Universal Studios that the use of VCRs was not a copyright violation. Imagine life today without home video? Consumers and movie studios alike benefitted from the use of VCRs. So the argument goes: we have no idea what P2P technologies await us, or how they might benefit society as a whole; to kill it now might have severe consequences.

As I look forward to this case, I expect the Court to smack down Grokster too. But I hope the holding is narrow enough to allow the technology to breathe and expand. P2P filesharing isn't inherently bad, and I hope the Court will realize it.

In any event, there's a good article about it today in the New York Times.

Bond is back

The next James Bond movie? Casino Royale.

The Greening of Evangelicals

The Washington Post has this really interesting article about the Christian right's move toward environmentalism. I'm not sure why it has taken so long, frankly. Excerpt:

There is growing evidence -- in polling and in public statements of church leaders -- that evangelicals are beginning to go for the green. Despite wariness toward mainstream environmental groups, a growing number of evangelicals view stewardship of the environment as a responsibility mandated by God in the Bible.

Useless Super Bowl Prediction

Everyone is taking the Pats, and you really can't blame them. They always win.

I'm beginning to wonder, though, if the team and its fans are getting just a little too cocky. The Sports Gods have a way of humbling you as soon as you get the most comfortable, and though I have no objective reason for believing it, I am starting to get a funny feeling that the word "hubris" might be thrown around before this weekend is over.

I still can't bring myself to actually predict an Eagles victory, because dude, the Pats always win. But I might be willing to take the Eagles to cover the spread (+7). Let's call it 34-30, New England.

Wait, screw it. 30-27, Eagles. And Vinitieri misses a big field goal.

What do you say, Dave Bailey, want to bet a shot of cheezwhiz on it?

Crazy... like a freak

As you may have noticed, I'll read anything written by Dahlia Lithwick on Slate. Really good legal analysis, but written in a conversational and often funny way. Good stuff.

In this article, she wonders whether Michael Jackson can stop being a freak long enough to save his life. An excerpt:

Enter Michael Jackson, with the surgeries and the personal zoo and the all-boy slumber parties; a man who defies every classification system know to man, living as he does at the interstices of male and female, black and white, man and boy. Why has no one leaned over and murmured in his reconstructed ear that he should maybe tone it down for the coming weeks? His life, either as a free man or as a pop icon, is at stake after all.

I've stayed away from the Michael Jackson trial because it seemed to be simply a tabloid circus spectacle. But this article ponders an interesting question. Can a person successfully utilize the "I'm Weird" defense? Can you make a jury believe that you're just too weird to be expected to conform to society's moral and social code? History would suggest not, but no one has really tried as hard as Jackson apparently is. Because, wow, he is really freaking weird, and isn't afraid to show it.

The Worst Wing

There's an article today about the future of The West Wing. This used to be my favorite show, when Aaron Sorkin was still writing for it. Since he left, the show has gone to hell.

Under Sorkin, the show was great because of its very erudite and witty dialogue. It may not have been realistic, but it was always fun to try to keep up with such intelligent and funny characters. Since Sorkin left and John Wells (of "ER" fame) took over the bulk of the story and writing choices, that aspect of the show is gone. The show doesn't surprise me anymore. It never makes me laugh. And it never has a "chill scene," like when Bartlet stepped to the podium to disclose his MS, or when he ordered an assassination while "The War of the Roses" played in the background. Those scenes got the little hairs on your neck to stand up straight. Today's West Wing can't hold a candle to it.

But for whatever reason, I'm still watching. I guess I'm hoping that this episode might be the one that brings the magic back... which is probably just about as futile as hoping that this season is the one where the Seahawks/Mariners/Sonics actually accomplish something.

Geeked-out anticipation

Any day now, the Supreme Court is going to rule on Ashcroft v. Raich, and I couldn't be more psyched. I love this case.

If you know it, you probably heard of it in the context of medical marijuana -- Raich is an elderly plaintiff suffering from a lengthy list of ailments, and she wants to smoke dope to ease the pain.

I like this case because it pits California's legalization of medical marijuana against the federal law that outlaws it. But I love this case because of what it does to the Court.

The Court's more "conservative" types (namely Justices Scalia and Thomas) are federalists; they want to limit federal lawmaking powers and let the states make laws for themselves. They say: that's how it's written in the Constitution ("The Interstate Commerce Clause," Art. 1, Section 8, says congress can only make laws that affect interstate commerce), and dammit, that's how it's got to be.

On the other hand, the Court's more liberal types (particularly Justice Stevens) are big fans of a broad federal lawmaking, and they like having the same rules apply to all states.

Since FDR's New Deal administration, the Court has mostly agreed with the Stevens-types. The Court adopted real loose definitions of "commerce" and "interstate," and pretty much let congress do whatever it wanted. But the Rehnquist Court (backed by Scalia and Thomas) has pushed back somewhat, with two cases in the 1990s where they struck down the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zone Act because neither act was related to commerce. It would make a lot of sense if the same court would allow California to decide what to do with medical marijuana because in Raich's case, she grows it at home or otherwise gets it for free... there's no commerce involved whatsoever. And it would make sense if Stevens wanted to allow the federal laws to trump the state.

But at the same time, Scalia and Thomas are no fans of tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, pot-smoking Californians. And Stevens, he wants the old-timers to burn one down if they feel like it. This case is awesome because it forces every member of the court to make a decision: stick to their guns about federalism, or stick to their guns about the righteousness of a stoner-hippie lifestyle.

My prediction is that the marijuana law will be struck down, and poor Ms. Raich will get her weed taken away. It'll be fun to see how Scalia and Thomas rationalize it, though.

This probably bores the hell out of you, but it fires me up. If you want to read how the oral argument went, check out Dahlia Lithwick's summary on Slate.

State of the Union

I only saw a few minutes of the State of the Union, but Dubya, with his deliberate over-enunciation and the way he slows way down to navigate through those tricky multi-syllabic sentences, reminded me of when drunk people try really hard to appear sober. He wanted so badly not to trip over his tongue, it sounded like he was responding to a cop who had asked him, "So have you had any drinks tonight, sir?"

"No sir. I am to-tal-ly so-ber. A-mer-i-ca's pros-per-i-ty re-quires re-strain-ing the spen-ding app-e-tite of the fed-er-al gov-ern-ment. Okay... so mebbe I hadda coupla beers."

But anyway, if this is the biggest story from the night, I guess I didn't miss much.

Listening to...

Shaun is a goner

There's no way the Seahawks keep Shaun Alexander this offseason. He's already openly pining for other teams. I say, let him go. If there's anything we should have learned from the Denver Broncos in the last decade or so, it's that it doesn't really matter in the NFL who your running back is, as long as your offensive line is good. The Broncos have a new 1300-yard rusher every year, but they always have the same line. The 'Hawks need to re-sign Walter Jones for sure, and I say bring back Hasselbeck too (though my brother vehemently disagrees). Jones is the best player at his position right now, and Hasselbeck is better than any QB on the market. If you lose Hasselbeck, you run the risk of becoming the Cowboys, who currently still have this guy behind center.

Stupid freaking rodent

You've never been so concerned about the outcome of Groundhog Day until you've lived somewhere where your snot freezes to your face. Thanks, Punxsutawney Phil, for the six more weeks of winter. I hate you.

Not so fast my friend...

It appears that my excitement from last summer about the Court's ruling on the Guantanamo prisoners (Rasul v. Bush) was a tad premature. Turns out, nobody knows what that opinion meant, and courts are interpreting it in completely opposite ways. Dahlia Lithwick has a great explanation on Slate, and there's a good summary on SCOTUSblog too.

Finally a video game for Dad

Caan, Duvall can't refuse video game offer. And now their dignity sleeps with the fishes.

Reason #4124 to re-sign Ray

Sonics got drubbed by the Spurs last night, with Ray Allen out with the flu. Not having to worry about Brother Ray, the Spurs just doubled Rashard and dared Ridnour and Flip to beat them. They didn't.

Rick Sund, get used to seeing this if you let him go.

The math is easy:
Ray + Rashard + role players = win
Rashard + role players = ass-beatin'

QED.

Crazy... like a fox

Mike Newdow came and spoke at the law school today. For anyone studying the First Amendment, specifically Church and State issues, Newdow is well-known for being... well, a little bit nuts. He's the one leading the charge against "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, "In God We Trust" on currency, and more recently, prayers at the presidential inauguration. He's also a Michigan Law School alumnus.

He's not nuts because of his arguments. The law at issue is far from crystal clear.

The reason Newdow is nuts is, um, let me put it this way: he stopped mid-lecture today to pick up a guitar and harmonica and sing a little ditty called "The Pledge of Allegiance Blues" (words and music by Mike Newdow). After another bit of lecture, the guitar was back for a rendition of "Roy's Rocks," a tribute to former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who famously refused to remove the sculpture of the 10 commandments from the courthouse. Egads. Then he launched into a five-minute summary of the history of the founding of America, using as many words that start with the letter "C" as possible. Yeah, I don't know either.

So this is the guy leading the charge against the Establishment of Religion. He's out there. But he's got the history of First Amendment jurisprudence on his side, so he's got a shot. I just hope he doesn't bring his guitar to the courthouse.