May 9, 2008
Because it’s Friday afternoon, I am compelled to bring this “life imitating art” clip to you. Have to give it to Sir Charles, he was a good sport about it.
* * * WARNING: NSFW LANGUAGE * * *
And the art ….
May 9, 2008
Yesterday, I posted my own diatribe to counter the latest press release issued by Texas Watch, but noted at the end of my post that I was most concerned about the publication of the number of per curiam opinions issued per Justice by the Office of Court Administration (OCA).
Well, the OCA was kind enough to clarify for me the history of this practice which largely assuages my original concern–for whatever that’s worth.
The collection and publication of this per curiam data is hardly new, having been annually compiled for some twenty-seven years since OCA first began tracking the number of per curiam decisions issued by each Justice as early as 1981. Moreover, the OCA specifically sought input from SCOTX in both 2004 and 2006 regarding the contents of the OCA’s annual report, and the Court expressed no concern regarding publication of the per curiam statistics.
The OCA was also correct to point out that the identity of the opinions enumerated in the statistics is kept confidential, with only the number of opinions issued per chamber being made public.
So, at the end of the day, I am likely the only person to whom this one column of data jumped out as being slightly odd. Moreover, if neither the Court nor the OCA are troubled by the practice, than it is certainly beyond my purview to be.
Thx to the OCA for accurately, annually, and faithfully reporting the current statistical state of the Texas judiciary
May 8, 2008
Shenanigans points out the colorable differences between yesterday’s Hardball and today’s.
Thx to Shenanigans
May 8, 2008
SCOTX Blog has a great post today regarding the latest screed from Texas Watch in their ever-vigilant quest to find new ways to sound imbecilic (my description only).
Texas Watch has apparently prepared a new “report” which purports to shine the light of truth on SCOTX’s “penchant for secrecy” by “using per curiam opinions inappropriately to avoid accountability for some of the tough decisions.“
Before I delve into the nonexistent merits of Texas Watch’s revelation, there is something curious going on here. Both the Houston Chronicle and the AP have published news accounts describing a report that Texas Watch has not even issued. Does anyone else find it odd that supposedly objective news outlets would be writing articles concerning PR dossiers that haven’t even been released to the public yet?
As to the merits, as any lawyer knows (which perhaps explains Mr. Winslow’s ignorance), per curiam opinions are a remedial tool used by SCOTX (and the courts of appeals for that matter) to more quickly dispose of cases that require only relatively straightforward error correction. See Hon. Robert H. Pemberton, One Year Under the New TRAP: Improvements, Problems and Unresolved Issues in Texas Supreme Court Proceedings, in State Bar of Tex. Prof’l Dev. Program, Advanced Civil Appellate Practice Course B, B-18 (1998).
In fact, SCOTX first began to increase its use of per curiam opinions as early as 1925, when–not coincidentally–the Court was suffering from such a severe backlog of cases that a separate judicial body was created to assist in the mass adjudication of pending cases. See David M. Gunn, “Unpublished Opinions Shall Not Be Cited as Authority”: The Emerging Contours of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 90(i), 24 ST. MARY’S L.J. 115, 117 (1992) (describing how, beginning in 1925, the Texas Supreme Court began to increase its issuance of per curiam opinions, “perhaps as a corrective device”); see also Act of Apr. 3, 1918, 35th Leg., 4th C.S., ch. 81, 1918 Tex. Gen. Laws 171 (made effective April 3, 1918, and reestablishing the Texas Commission of Appeals); Tex. S.J. Res. 8, 49th Leg., R.S., 1945 Tex. Gen. Laws 1043 (adopted at election held Aug. 25, 1945 eliminating the Texas Commission of Appeal).
Accordingly, per curiam opinions are used to more efficiently dispose of those cases upon which there is little or no disagreement, and which present fairly straightforward legal issues. In other words, if the Court is issuing more per curiam opinions, it is probably more accurately an indicia of an increased determination to reduce the Court’s backlog (previously bemoaned by Texas Watch) of appropriate cases than it is a Machiavellian attempt to shroud the deciding members from public scrutiny.
To the contrary, the use of such a jurisprudential mechanism actually INCREASES the scrutiny upon the Justices because a per curiam opinion is–by definition–issued by the entire Court. Every Justice is given equal praise/blame for the failings or triumphs of the decision, as compared to an authored opinion which can be attributed only to the majority of Justices who sign it.
Moreover, because the only type of case that is appropriate for per curiam disposition is one in which the legal issues are clear, straightforward, and non-controversial, Winslow’s claim that “[a]ll too often, the Texas Supreme Court uses per curiam opinions as a shield to hide behind when they render decisions that are controversial, leaving them unaccountable to voters” can simply not be taken seriously. Any decision likely to cause controversy or which demands the Court clarify a muddled or disputed area of the law is precisely the type of opinion least likely to be issued per curiam. And, as explained above, a per curiam opinion subjects every single Justice on the Court to elevated scrutiny, not just the authoring few.
Again, any basic analysis of the different types of opinions SCOTX is empowered to issue is a bit dry and legally complicated so I can’t really fault a group of non-lawyers (save for the one four-year lawyer Texas Watch recently hired) for failing to comprehend the finer points of the practice.
Most interesting to me is SCOTX Blog’s noting that the official statistics published annually by the Office of Court Administration track the per curiam opinions written by each Justice (see page four of the .pdf file).
While it is of course obvious that a single Justice must be logistically tasked to author a per curiam opinion, the identity of that Justice should remain anonymous because it is the Court as a whole that is issuing the opinion. The fact that OCA tracks and publishes this data, tying these opinions to the chambers which issue them (by number of opinions only) is more troublesome than any flotsam trotted out by Texas Watch.
Thx to SCOTX Blog
May 8, 2008
You’d think that law firms–of all places–would be bastions of political correctness and equality, or at the very least, the last professional environment where one could expect to have the following things happen.
First, it was Paul Hastings‘ (known for its employment law practice) extreme lack of tact (or timing) in firing an associate six days after she suffered a miscarriage. Then the firm had the audacity to coerce her into signing a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for three month’s pay (which she rightly refused).
They are now reaping what they sowed.
Now, a former associate of Bingham McCutchen is suing her former firm for failing to take action after she reported being drugged with tegretol (an anti-seizure medication that causes memory loss when taken with alcohol) at a firm holiday party.
Wouldn’t most folks assume that a LAW FIRM would be proactive if not aggressive in trying to get to the bottom of such criminal and damaging behavior?
Apparently not.
* * * UPDATE * * *
Bingham has responded with its official side of the story.
Thx to Above the Law
May 8, 2008
Following up on our post last week comparing the gross revenues of BigTex and MidTex (and BigLaw generally), see the Texas-generated gross revenues figures of the top BigLaw firms in Texas.
Jones Day $161.8 million
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges $140.4 million
Hunton & Williams $90 million
King and Spalding 82.2 million
Mayer Brown $64.2 million
Thx to Res Ipsa
May 8, 2008
We related some of the anectdotes contained in a new tome about the life and times of former Lieutenant Governor and Comptroller Bob Bullock , entitled, “Bob Bullock: God Bless Texas.”
Well the book, and particularly the conduct of the authors, has not sat well with Bullock’s widow and many of his closest friends and colleagues.
The bad blood apparently goes back to a 1994 column by book co-author Dave McNeely (on the left above) that ran two days after Bullock had heart bypass surgery, which speculated who would be lieutenant governor if Bullock died.
Very subtle Dave, can’t imagine why Jan Bullock would have taken offense at that.
Book co-author Jim Henderson (on the right above), offered this less-than-tasteful response to the negative reaction to the book by Bullock loyalists and widow Jan Bullock:
Mcneely may have revealed the authors’ true motivation in including more of the salacious (and disputed) details of Mr. Bullock’s life, when he admitted to the Statesman that “he hopes the book fuels a TV pilot.”
I bet he does.
Thx to Postcards from the Lege, the Statesman, and Texas Politics
May 8, 2008
Of the 1,072 folks who sat for the February 2008 Texas Bar Exam, some 762 people–or 71.08 percent–passed.
The breakdown by Texas law school was as follows:
Thx to Res Ipsa and Tex Parte Blog
May 8, 2008
Justice Scalia gave his best interview yet the other day with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN’s series, Q&A.
One of the most interesting segments was when Lamb showed Justice Scalia this clip from the Daily Show castigating his 60 Minutes appearance and his vote in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), and then asked for his reaction.
“I watched [the Daily Show] once and that was enough.”
Justice Scalia elaborated further. First, he reminded John Stewart that President Bush was subsequently re-elected in 2004, so blaming his current occupancy of the office, the ongoing war in Iraq, or anything else derivatively-related in 2008 is specious. Second, he recounted how press studies conducted subsequent to the election found that Vice President Gore would have still lost even if he had never brought the election challenge that eventually resulted in Bush v. Gore, and the votes had been counted the way Gore sought. Third, and “penultimately,” Justice Scalia reiterated that the case only came before SCOTUS because Gore brought the suit, so it was he–not Bush or SCOTUS–who “wanted courts to decide the election.”
What was SCOTUS supposed to do when one of the parties (Bush) alleged the Florida Supreme Court had violated the federal constitution, “turn the case down for not being important enough … hardly.” Last, he also reiterated a point I have made as well that the vote finding the Florida Supreme Court violated the constitution was 7-2, not 5-4.
Justice Scalia also hinted at some future books he’d like to write, most exciting of which would be a sequel to his seminal tome, “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.”
The discussion ranged from what items are in his official SCOTUS portrait (a copy of–what else–The Federalist, and Webster’s Second International Dictionary (he doesn’t care for the Third edition)) to whether he still smokes a pipe (which he said was a very useful tool during his confirmation hearings to distract attention from what he was saying).
Thx to Convictions, WestBlog, and WSJ Law Blog
May 8, 2008
A few days ago, Volokh had a post entitled, “It’s David Lat’s World, and BigLaw Partners Are Just Living In It.” I couldn’t agree more. Above the Law has become an essential outlet for exposing BigLaw tomfoolery and scandal.
One commenter over ATL put it best when they said:
Fact: H. Rodgin Cohen wears David Lat pajamas.
Fact: Before he goes to bed Jim Sandman checks his closet for Kashmir Hill.Fact: Fear is not the only emotion David Lat can smell. He can also detect hope, as in “I hope I don’t get profiled on Above The Law by David Lat.”
Fact: A study showed the leading causes of death among partners in the AmLaw 100 are: 1. Heart disease, 2. David Lat, 3. Cancer.
May 8, 2008
Our own little brand of movie magic first started here in Austin in 1997 is all grown up.
A new franchisee is opening the first location outside of Texas in Winchester, Virginia, which is a college town about seventy-five miles from Washington D.C.
Alamo currently has seven locations in Texas, and plans to open two more theatres in San Antonio and McAllen, and up to thirty more locations in Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona by 2010.
Thx to the Austin Business Journal
May 6, 2008
The past few months or so have seen some truly momentous changes in the Texas appellate world, particularly as viewed from Houston.
In March, the respected appellate practice group at Mayer Brown splintered, with a portion leaving to head up the new appellate practice at Pillsbury, and another faction headlined by former SCOTUS clerks Brett Busby (Stevens, J.) and Jeff Oldham (Rehnquist, C.J.) moving to Bracewell Giuliani.
The latest addition to the Houston appellate scene is Morgan Lewis’ recent announcement that former Solicitor General Ted Cruz will be helping lead the firm’s effort to build the SCOTUS and national appellate practice from its Houston office.
Thx to SCOTX Blog and Tex Parte Blog
May 6, 2008
Today, Senator John McCain gave a 3,383 word speech expounding upon his judicial philosophy, but as Jonathan Martin keenly observed, this picture speaks louder than any soundbite in the Senator’s speech.
Thx to Jonathan Martin
May 6, 2008
Justice Scalia by a mile, according to D.C. Dicta.
After reviewing oral argument transcripts from this past term, D.C. Dicta alloted the gallery chortles this way:
Justice Antonin Scalia: 74
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.: 23
Justice Stephen Breyer: 21
Justice David Souter: 17
Justice Anthony Kennedy: 9
Justice John Paul Stevens: 7
Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.: 4
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 4
Justice Clarence Thomas: 0
Of course, Justice Thomas‘ lowly rating is less a comment on his sense of humor as much as it is a function of his recalcitrance to make any comment during oral argument, funny or otherwise.
Thx to D.C. Dicta
May 2, 2008
That’s right UT Head Football Coach Mack Brown has an endowed academic chair in global affairs at UT’s LBJ School of Public Affairs.
Now, the title doesn’t mean Coach Brown actually teaches at the LBJ School, but instead that a professor does whose salary is paid by the chair’s endowment.
Brown now joins two other legendary college football coaches–Joe Paterno at Penn State and Woody Hayes at Ohio State–as the only three in the nation to have academic chairs endowed in their name.
In fact, in two weeks Coach Paterno will be in Austin, along with NFL Hall of Famer Lynn Swann to headline a fundraising dinner aimed at raising the final $500,000 needed to fully fund Coach Brown’s chair. The athletic department donated an initial $500,000 to establish the chair, and the LBJ Foundation has raised another $1 million in the interim.
If you are interested in attending, dinner tickets are $1,000, tickets for the VIP reception are $25,000, and co-chairs sponsorships are $100,000.
Thx to Texas Politics
May 2, 2008
This past weekend, I finally sat down to watch Frontline’s recent, two-part report on the lead-up to and the conduct of the war in Iraq. Despite Frontline’s well-earned reputation for being left-leaning, the report itself was very well done and comprehensive, including interviews with almost every single person of note both within and without the Bush Administration. The interplay between the Administration heavyweights is enthralling, and the documentary does a great job of providing the contextual background to each person’s strongly-held views. Even realizing the documentary has a political agenda, any viewer (including one as avowedly conservative as myself) can learn a lot from this report.
I found Part I, which covers the period of time from 9/11, through the CIA’s war in Afghanistan, to the beginning of the fighting in Iraq, to be the most enlightening. It is fascinating to watch how the whole of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus was drastically and immediately changed by 9/11, from being perennially cemented in a defensive posture, to a proactive, “kick a[$$]” footing.
Part I also delves into the flawed intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, but curiously fails to include the intelligence reports that actually did turn out to be accurate, as recently published by the Institute for Defense Analyses after reviewing some 600,000 Pentagon documents.
Part II delves into all the different players and chapters of the Iraq war, giving noticeably short shrift to the recent success of the “surge.” However, it is a very thorough recounting of the ebbs and flows in the Iraq War and provides background information on many familiar events of which I was unaware. Recommended viewing all around.
I thought the most intriguing interviews were those in Part I of the CIA guys, including Cofer Black (who served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Counterterrorism Center from 1999 to 2002), Gary Berntsen (a CIA field officer who was awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Medal and the Intelligence Star for commanding a team of CIA and special forces during the war in Afghanistan in 2001), Michael Scheuer (chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Desk from 1995 to 1999 and headed an internal CIA investigation into the allegations of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda), and Gary Schroen (CIA operator who was chosen soon after 9/11 to lead the first trip into northern Afghanistan to connect with leaders of the Northern Alliance, offer money, equipment and political support), who detail how the CIA went immediately into Afghanistan after 9/11 and began to bring the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
“You[, (Black),] have a personal involvement with Al Qaeda and [Osama] bin Laden. The way the story goes, he tried to kill you …. Tell me a little bit of that story.”
They thought I was the target; actually, I was the hunter, and we turned it on them (snaps fingers) like that. And when they had their chance, they ran home to Mama.
Black, on his immediate thoughts after learning of the 9/11 attacks that morning:
We are now in a situation where we’ll no longer be like the junkyard dog staked to the ground, … and that our capabilities were going to be unleashed and realized.
Schroen, on the orders he received from Black on September 13, 2001:
He basically said to me: “I want to make it clear what your real job is. All these other things — linking up with the Northern Alliance, preparing the battlefield, helping the special forces get in or whatever happens — is fine. But once the Taliban are broken, your job is to find bin Laden, kill him and bring his head back on ice.”
Scheuer, quoting Black’s directives regarding Al Qaeda:
“We’re going to put their heads on pikes. And we want flies crossing–crawling across their dead eyes.”
Berntsen, describing the orders he received from Black around September 15, 2001:
One-third of your men will die. Be prepared for that. I accept it; you need to accept it and proceed aggressively. I want you killing the enemy in 48 hours.
Schroen, recounting Black’s summary of the strategy against Al Qaeda:
[T]he gloves are off.
Black, on implementing the war plan against Al Qaeda:
We really took momentum. And George Tenet said OK, take the plan and have it ready by tomorrow. We spent years working on this stuff, so when everybody else is looking for their maps on Afghanistan, we’re ready to rock; we’re ready to roll ….
Black, on the CIA’s performance in Afghanistan:
[W]e’d like the survivors of 9/11 to know that those of us in the business consider it the CIA’s finest hour. We went in to kick a[$$], and we did that.
Black, on 20/20 hindsight:
Well, I would like to put this into perspective for you. … It always gives me pause when I think about the fact that the 9/11 Commission hired twice as much staff … and were allocated twice as much money than I was provided to fight Al Qaeda worldwide on an annual basis.
Thx to Frontline
May 1, 2008
How much money does it take to start a record label? A lot I’m sure. But $360 billion?
That was the excuse given by a Fort Worth man who tried to cash a check made out for $360,000,000,000.00. He quickly lowered his monetary sights (by about 96 million times), however, posting bail for $3,750.00.
Thx to Above the Law, the FW Star-Telegram, and MSNBC
May 1, 2008
Here are several more fascinating interviews with both Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner regarding their new book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges.
The first three clips come courtesy of NPR’s own Nina Totenberg, whose interview Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner was featured in three parts on Morning Edition, Day to Day, and All Things Considered.
The second interview is with Bryan Garner alone, courtesty of Thomson Reuters’ blog.
Thx to How Appealing, Res Ipsa, Westblog, and NPR
May 1, 2008
Craig Ferguson turned out to be a hit at this year’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, poking fun at everyone, but tastefully so.
President Bush’s speech was a retrospective of his past seven appearances at the dinner, some of which were pretty funny. My favorites were Laura Bush’s 2005 quip that “9:00 o’clock and Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep … and I’m watching Desperate Housewives,” and Bush’s 2001 assurance that he held no hard feelings against his brother, the then-Governor of Florida, for the Florida recount (see below).
Ferguson had some particularly good zings against the New York Times, who was very publicly absent from the soiree:
* * *
Shut the hell up NY Times you sanctimonius whining jerks!
Overheard at the party was Bunny Ranch owner Dennis Hof on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “I know Harry very well. He’s a good guy.” I’m sure the Senator heartily appreciated that vote of confidence.
* * * UPDATE * * *
After eating at White Castle and escaping from Guantanamo Bay, Kumar apparently attended the WHCA dinner as well.
Thx to Shenanigans, Fishbowl DC, and TV Newser
April 30, 2008
We reluctantly pass along to you that the Houston Chronicle is reporting SCOTX Justice Medina’s wife has been re-indicted for arson relating to the fire that destroyed the couple’s home last year.
Prosecutor Vic Wisner said he didn’t expect to seek any other indictments in the case, which would effectively clear Justice Medina in the matter.
Thx to Political Junkie and the Houston Chronicle
April 30, 2008
I was tempted not to post on Monday’s SCOTUS decision in Crawford v. Marion County, No. 07-21 (Apr. 28, 2008 ), because I’ve never grasped what possible, plausible argument could be made that requiring a voter ID card is unconstitutional.
However, once I saw the following author line, it alone merits some discussion:
JUSTICE STEVENS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY join.
The more I read Senior Associate Justice Stevens’ opinion, the more I am convinced that any opposition to this law is–in Justice Scalia’s words–”sheer applesauce.” See Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education, No. 05–1508 (April 17, 2007) (Scalia, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., Thomas, J., and Souter, J., as to Part I, dissenting).
First, the voter ID cards the law requires are issued to voters at no cost. Slip. op. at 15 (Stevens, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., and Kennedy, J.). So all the bemoaning you may have read in the press or in the dissent regarding how this decision affirms what amounts to a poll tax is utter gibberish.
Even more amazingly, the law even provides for people who can’t obtain a voter ID (potentially including “elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate;18 persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed”), the ability to vote provisionally and then sign a free affidavit at the county courthouse. See id.
Justice Stevens even manages to get in some benchslappery directed at his colleague in dissent, Justice Souter:
Supposition based on extensive Internet research is not an adequate substitute for admissible evidence subject to cross-examination in constitutional adjudication.
Id. at 18 n.20.
Unsurprisingly, Justice Scalia boils the whole case down to its constitutional core in his concurrence:
The universally applicable requirements of Indiana’s voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not “even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” And the State’s interests, ante, at 7–13, are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden. That should end the matter. That the State accommodates some voters by permitting (not requiring) the casting of absentee or provisional ballots, is an indulgence—not a constitutional imperative that falls short of what is required.
Slip. op. at 6 (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas and Alito, J.J., concurring) (citations omitted).
Thx to the Austin Political Report and the NY Times
April 30, 2008
So says a male plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by three inhabitants of the Greek Island of Lesbos against the only officially-registered homosexual group in Greece to use the word “lesbian” in its name.
One of the ways the only male plaintiff stated he has been damaged is that:
My sister can’t say she is a Lesbian … [o]ur geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos.
Proving yet again why he is the master, Professor Volokh predicted (and maybe influenced) just such a suit last summer:
Thx to Volokh, the AP, and AbovetheLaw
April 30, 2008
The terms, “BigTex” and “MidTex,” are thrown around a lot to indicate who the top firms in Texas are, often subjectively. Below, see the list of the highest-grossing firms in Texas during FY 2007.
Akin Gump $752 million
Fulbright $649 million
Vinson & Elkins $596 million
Baker Botts $577.7 million
Bracewell & Giuliani $293 million
Haynes and Boone $264.3 million
Andrews Kurth $251 million
Locke Liddell $244.5 million
Thompson & Knight $214.5 million
Susman Godfrey $171 million
Gardere $169.2 million
Jackson Walker $163.5 million
Clearly, the only firms that can truly be referred to as “BigTex” are Akin Gump, Fulbright, V&E, and Baker Botts, who each make multiples in excess of the next highest ranking firms.
“MidTex” then, is plainly populated by Haynes and Boone, Bracewell & Giuliani, Andrews Kurth, Locke [Lord], and Thompson & Knight.
Gardere and Jackson Walker may also be rightfully considered “MidTex” as well, but it is surprising (at least to me) that they are about a $100 million behind the other MidTex firms in revenue.
Most impressive is that Susman Godrey, while having only 85 lawyers, brings in more revenue than Gardere–which has 290 attorneys, and Jackson Walker–which has 321 lawyers. Unsurprisingly, profit-per-partner is tops once again at Susman, coming in at $3 million.
* * * UPDATE * * *
Compare the BigTex revenue numbers to that of BigLaw below and you’ll get an idea of the disparity between the two.
Thx to Res Ipsa and AbovetheLaw
April 30, 2008
I have yet another book to add to my summer reading list, Steven Teles’s The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement.
Professor Zywicki has a great review of it over at Volokh.
Thx to Volokh
April 30, 2008
Above the Law has a great post about “pop-culture historian” Bill Geerhart, who at various times over the years has posed as a 10 year-old boy named “Billy” and written to various celebrities.
Upon writing to Justice Thomas and asking him what his favorite McDonald’s menu item was, Justice Thomas sent the following handwritten message back:
Even more amusing was the response “Billy” got from Hustler founder Larry Flynt, after asking Flynt if there was a “Hustler for kids” to which the youngster could subscribe:
Thx to AbovetheLaw and Radar
April 30, 2008
Last week, Texas Tech School of Law unveiled its first major structural addition in some 34 years, the $13.6 million Mark & Becky Lanier Professional Development Center.
The centerpiece of the Lanier addition is the 130-seat Donald M. Hunt Courtroom, which hosted SCOTX last week for oral argument.
Not quite yet as famous as the Hunt Courtroom is the Dicky Grigg Men’s Bathroom, which is the third such facility on campus that Grigg has, uh, endowed.
Thx to the Daily Toreador , Res Ipsa, SCOTX Blog, and Tex Parte Blog
April 30, 2008
The AP had a great article yesterday about perhaps the most reclusive Justice on SCOTUS, Justice Souter.
In it, Justice Souter recounts how a field trip he took to Gettysburg with his law clerks affected his consternation about having to decide a certain, unnamed case.
It seems a fair assessment that one of the pivots of American history was at that place, at that moment …. I could not ever again, under any circumstance, say it is unfair that I have to do this.
Justice Souter also related a story of Judge Learned Hand, who once hurled a paperweight in anger at his law clerk, but “[f]ortunately, he was a poor pitcher.”
Remarking on an unnaturally svelte portrait on display at the Supreme Court of the only person to serve as both Chief Justice and President of the United States–the famously large William Howard Taft–Souter called it “the greatest example of aesthetic weight loss in the history of American portraiture.”
Thx to the AP and How Appealing
April 30, 2008
Happy 75th to one of the Patron Saints of Texas, next to Sam Houston, Stephen F. Austin, Buddy Holly, and Bob Wills.
Be sure to listen to KUT’s retrospective on Willie’s storied career as well as a fascinating interview with Willie’s biographer and Texas Monthly writer, Joe Nick Patoski.
* * * UPDATE * * *
The interview answers a question I have long had as well regarding why some news accounts place Willie’s birthday on April 29th instead of the 30th. Apparently, Willie was born sometime after 11 P.M. on the 29th, but the attending physician, “Doc Sims,” did not sign Willie’s birth certificate until after midnight.
Thx to Willie for his many years of bringing Texas music to all those were born here as well as all those who wish they were.
April 29, 2008
Following up on our earlier discussion of Justice Scalia’s recent interview on 60 Minutes (available here and here, in its entirety), Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner have also given a fascinating audio interview to the ABA Journal’s Richard Brust regarding their newly-published book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges.
The ABA Journal has also posted some great excerpts from the book, including the following snippets.
On the right and wrong way to frame the relief you seek:
Wrong:
The undersigned counsel do hereby for and on behalf of their clients, for the reasons explained hereinbelow, respectfully request that this Honorable Court consider and hereby rule that no issues of material fact do exist in the instant controversy, and that a final judgment be entered in favor of the client of the undersigned counsel (sometimes herein referred to as “Defendant” or “Cross-Plaintiff”) and against Plaintiff.
Right:
Johnson requests entry of summary judgment.
On signposting one’s arguments:
There are many such guiding words and phrases: moreover, however (preferably not at the head of a sentence), although, on the other hand, nonetheless, to prove the point, etc. These words and phrases turn the reader’s head, so to speak, in the direction you want the reader to look. Good writers use them abundantly.
Normally, the very best guiding words are monosyllabic conjunctions: and, but, nor, or, so and yet. Professional writers routinely put them at the head of a sentence, and so should you.
On eliminating jargon:
Banish jargon, hackneyed expressions and needless Latin. By “jargon” we mean the words and phrases used almost exclusively by lawyers in place of plain-English words and phrases that express the same thought. Jargon adds nothing but a phony air of expertise. A nexus, for example, is nothing more or less than a link or a connection. And what is the instant case? Does it have anything to do with instant coffee?
* * *
Write normal English. Such as a demonstrative adjective (such action) can almost always be replaced with the good old normal English this or that. And hereinbefore with earlier. And pursuant to with under. The key is to avoid words that would cause people to look at you funny if you used them at a party.
On avoiding clichés:
Hackneyed expressions are verbal formulations that were wonderfully vivid when first used, but whose vividness—through overuse—no longer pleases but bores. Such-and-such a case “and its progeny” is a good example. Or the assertion that an argument is “fatally flawed” or “flies in the face of” something; that your adversary is “painting with a broad brush”; that a claim isn’t “viable”; that the “parameters” of a rule aren’t settled; or that something is true “beyond peradventure of doubt.” The test is: Have you seen the vivid phrase a lot? If so, odds are it’s a cliché.
On avoiding unnessecary Latin phraseology:
Judges are permitted to show off in this fashion, but lawyers must not. And the judge who does not happen to know the obscure Latin phrase you have flaunted will think you a twit.
On the careful use of humor during oral argument, Justice Scalia recounts the unfortunate joke told by Texas assistant AG Jay Floyd during the oral arguments in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), in which he began by remarking:
“Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court, it’s an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they’re going to have the last word.” No one laughed. Onlookers said that during an embarrassing silence, Chief Justice Burger scowled at the advocate.
On handling a difficult judge during oral argument:
A noted barrister, F.E. Smith, had argued at some length in an English court when the judge leaned over the bench and said: “I have read your case, Mr. Smith, and I am no wiser than I was when I started.”
To which the barrister replied: “Possibly not, My Lord, but far better informed.” Smith, who later became a famous judge as the Earl of Birkenhead, could reportedly carry off such snappy rejoinders with impunity.
We doubt that, but in any case we don’t recommend that you emulate him.
Thx to the ABA Journal and Volokh
April 29, 2008
The New York Post has a new flash game that allows you to duke out the eventual Democrat Party nominee.
It is interesting to note that I’ve played as both candidates, and it seems that Hillary is far more accurate in landing her punches than Obama is in landing his.
Thx to the NY Post
April 25, 2008
When you’re making your entertainment plans this summer, be sure to include one last visit to the Backyard, because this summer will be your last chance to see a show at the original location.
I was just out with an old friend the other night at Doc’s MotorWorks drinking a few too many pitchers of Shiner, when we began to reminisce about the good old days of the Backyard, before it was surrounded by a parking lot and bigbox chain stores. The last show I saw there was Willie, and it was really magical to sit out under the oaks in the majestic Texas Hill Country and listen to really good Texas music.
The owner of the Backyard hopes to relocate down the road in the City of Bee Cave in a location that won’t again be overrun by developers.
So, hopefully unlike Shady Grove RV Park and the banks of Waller Creek, the Backyard will once again be a tranquil spot where you can come listen to some of the best music around.
Thx to the Austinist
April 25, 2008
My wife and I have long been fans of the Alamo Drafthouse for its great food, fantastic beer selection, and Austin ethic, but now we have even more reason to love the Alamo thanks to the TABC.
The downtown Alamo can now serve liquor!!!! Whooohooo!!!!
Now, I can actually watch Goldfinger while sipping on my very own shaken vodka martini. It just doesn’t get any better than that.
Thx to the TABC and the Alamo Drafthouse
April 25, 2008
The sky is the limit for first-term Austin City Councilwoman Jennifer Kim. When it comes to allocating the $260,000 a year with which her office is endowed (nominally to pay for the member’s salary and that of their staff), Councilwoman Kim has appropriated generously.
Oh, not on salaries mind you or other public expenses that wouldn’t raise the eyebrows of Austin’s taxpayers, but on questionable items such as:
Using taxpayer dollars to buy designer barware, and a stay at a trendy Manhattan hotel? Has she been reading the Pedernales Co-op’s guide to fiscal responsibility?
When asked about these expenditures by a local reporter, Kim defended her acquisitional judgment by saying, “I spend what I need to out of my budget to be able to do the job. And in the beginning, it was a brand new office, a brand new staff, there were a lot of things that we needed.”
Like Vera Wang barware. Riiiiight.
I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on the pens (my Mont Blanc makes those look reasonable), the stationary, the suit steamer, the travel club membership, etc., but–despite being an Aggie–she should know enough not to use public funds to buy any of these items from expensive vendors, if at all.
This is not the first example of Kim’s poor judgment however. In early 2007, she created a furor by indignantly attempting to bypass airport security at ABIA, claiming nonexistent VIP status. When informed her status as a member of the Austin City Council conferred her no special security rights, Kim said “I didn’t know it was a [Transportation Security Administration (TSA)] issue, … I thought since it was our airport and we own it, and if we are pre-cleared, we could get through.”
Uh, ask anyone who has flown since 9/11 if they are aware TSA runs airport security.
As reported elsewhere, Kim’s antics have made her hard to work with, running through at least three executive aides since she took office in 2005.
Her airport shenanigans have even given her electoral opponent a campaign slogan, “I’ll be happy to stand in line with you at the airport anytime.”
Thx to KVUE’s Political Junkie, the Austin Chronicle, News 8 Austin, and PinkDome
April 25, 2008
In honor of Willie’s upcoming 75th birthday, KUT’s Texas Music Matters has produced an hour-long documentary of the legendary musician set to air this Sunday at 11 AM.
Beginning on his birthday, April 29th, the documentary will be available to download here.
Thx to the Austinist
April 25, 2008