Reasons To Be Cheerful

[LiquidNY]

Scalia's concurrence in Glossip v. Gross is a rtbc.

[Sneakeater]

While I'm dispelling cheer, this law review article by John Hart Ely was enormously influential on the generation of law students that included both John Roberts and me.

[splinky]

i find loving interesting because the trial judge in the first case noted miscegenation was a crime against god

 

 

 

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

 

of course, the original business reason proscribing such marriages, in this country, was that you can't marry property (you can have sex with property and make it bear your children but you can't marry it). now that corporations are people, and i am counted as a whole citizen, i wonder if i can marry berkshire hathaway

[hollywood]

i find loving interesting because the trial judge in the first case noted miscegenation was a crime against god

 

 

 

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

 

of course, the original business reason proscribing such marriages, in this country, was that you can't marry property (you can have sex with property and make it bear your children but you can't marry it). now that corporations are people, and i am counted as a whole citizen, i wonder if i can marry berkshire hathaway

You'd probably be limited to class B.

 

eta: Act now. It was down $3.27 today.

[Sneakeater]

i find loving interesting because the trial judge in the first case noted miscegenation was a crime against god

 

 

 

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

 

of course, the original business reason proscribing such marriages, in this country, was that you can't marry property (you can have sex with property and make it bear your children but you can't marry it). now that corporations are people, and i am counted as a whole citizen, i wonder if i can marry berkshire hathaway

 

I think it's more that corporations can fuck citizens.

[Sneakeater]

Scalia's concurrence in Glossip v. Gross is a rtbc.

 

The devil has all the best tunes.

[LiquidNY]

 

Scalia's concurrence in Glossip v. Gross is a rtbc.

The devil has all the best tunes.

 

As a quant, I have to point out that the Eighth Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment, not cruel or unusual punishment.

[Wilfrid]

I really can do "being qua being" soup to nuts, but not on a phone after a cocktail and two beers.

 

Disappointed by just a silly misstatement in Toobin's online New Yorker piece, where he says the equal protection issue is about withholding equal marital rights from "the class of people who happen to be gay. End of story."

 

No, Jeff mate. Gay people have always been able to enjoy full marital rights, raise children, and generally be pillars of society, as long as their marital partner wasn't same sex. Which really underlines the artificiality and silliness of the formerly prevailing situation.

[Wilfrid]

You can have cruel or unusual. Any preference or shall we flip a coin?

[LiquidNY]

I would gamble on unusual.

[Wilfrid]

If you want an RTBC, it's the hysterically funny idea of Cruz and Rubio going head to head for that crucial Latino voting block, gentes who want to see their friends and family arrested and deported.

 

Buena suerta, conos.

[Wilfrid]

I would gamble on unusual.

Me too. It might be listening to Smurfs albums.

[Lex]

We temporarily interrupt our multi-page legal discussion for an on-topic post, namely an actual RTBC -

 

Pabst Blue Ribbon sales are declining.

[Lex]

And another via Grub Street.

A Diner’s ‘Antonin Scalia Is a Douche’ Brunch Sold Out in Two Hours

Antonin Scalia squeezed both a hippie slam and a California burn into his gay-marriage dissent, but he apparently wasn't the only one who got some zingers out of Friday's landmark ruling: Sam's Morning Glory Diner, a venerable Philly brunch destination, whipped up a SCOTUS-themed weekend menu, and the blunt "Antonin Scalia Is a Douche" egg special was the crowd favorite. Not two hours after opening, owner Carol Mickey had flown through 150 orders of the "hefty" egg-Andouille–Monterey Jack dish, which was all the sausage she had. A second special, "The Supreme Court Finally Got It Right" quiche, sold out just as fast.

Mickey says the dish/political statement is officially her all-time-best seller. She figures, "People were just loving saying it — 'I'll have the Scalia Is a Douche, please.'"

[Sneakeater]

What's sort of funny about last week is that, when Justice Scalia accused the majority of engaging in "jiggery pokery" in Burwell (the ACA case), I thought that was another name for the conduct the Court found protected in Lawrence v. Texas.