Which isn’t to say sexual harassment isn’t bad. It is very, very, very bad. It’s just that it’s not as though this cost him the election. He never had the election. But hey, if this gets him out of the national spotlight sooner rather than later it’s good with me.
“The Court recognizes the common law of torts does not permit recovery for negligently inflicted emotional distress unless the distress falls within certain specific categories that are recovery-permitting exceptions.”—Tort Law and Alternatives, i.e. my torts textbooks. What they’re saying is you can’t sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress, except when you can. Really clears that up!
“Only later did Gates relate to Isaacson: “What I didn’t tell Steve is that it (the Apple model) only works when you have a Steve Jobs.” When Isaacson asked Jobs if he really thought the Microsoft model works, Jobs replied: “Yeah, it works, but only if you don’t mind making crappy products.”—How touching.
When the Supreme Court says something is “obvious,” what they mean is, “We’re about to make or have just made a completely unsupported assumption, but maybe if we say it’s obvious you won’t argue with us because you’ll just figure you missed something.”
Well guess what, SCOTUS? I’m on to your little trick, and don’t think I don’t notice every single time you say the word obvious. I’m going to challenge you. Granted, I’m going to challenge you in a legal memo that only one law professor will read and you’ve got basically perfect job security sitting on the highest court in the United States of America, so you probably don’t care, but you know, it makes me feel better.
I’m reading this line of cases for my legal writing class and judges keep talking about a “domestic dispute.” And I do not think that phrase means what they think it means.
Listen up, judges. Arguing over who should go pick the kid up from soccer practice, who has the worse in-laws, or whether to order Thai or Chinese take out is a domestic dispute.
Beating, strangling, stabbing, and raping is, on the other hand, assault and battery, i.e. a violent crime, i.e. likely felonious, i.e. very bad. (I’m using the Latin so judges will understand.) When a husband rapes his wife, it is not a domestic dispute, it’s rape. When a husband beats up his wife, it’s assault. When a man attempts to strangle his wife, it’s assault.
If you could just clear that up, and stop minimizing pain because it was inflicted on someone by someone they love and live with, that’d be swell. Then I could focus on the law involved and stop getting all mad about chauvinism. Thanks. I appreciate it.
“We got kooks running Washington, basically. Kooks are in charge of our government. You all can recognize a kook, but the media seems to not understand. Around two years ago, some guy in New Mexico claimed he was the messiah. And the press couldn’t figure it out. I’m sorry, but the answer to that is real simple. You take them five miles off the coast and let ‘em out. If he walks home, you think about it. If he sinks to the bottom, then he probably wasn’t the messiah. But we’ve got people like that in Washington running our agencies. People are declaring that we descended from apes. Now, I know that’s not true. The argument that we descended from sheep is still an open question. But the ape idea is completely out of line.”—
You know my favorite part? The bit about the sheep. He’s going along in this weird messiah rant, and then goes, “I mean, okay, the SHEEP thing is debatable. But the ape thing is totally out of the question. Duh.”
Oh well. I can’t listen to Romney say simultaneously that we should cap government spending and balance the budget within his first year in office and that we should bring Americans back to work. In case you’ve been asleep the past month, the public sector has been losing jobs as the private sector inches along, and this public sector loss has coincided with guess what? Less government spending! It’s math, Governor. Come on. You used to know this stuff.
longest I've gone without muting a Republican debate
is thirty-three minutes in! I still haven’t had to mute it once! I’m thinking this is probably because I’m so aggravated with the way this judge wrote the opinion I’m reading that I don’t have enough energy to get aggravated at something insane Herman Cain said. Sure, Herman Cain thinks it would be a good idea to have a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent sales tax, and a 9 percent property tax (the last one is a property tax, right?), but this judge is trying to actually argue for the legal fiction that there is no federal common law with a straight face. Look, Mr. Judge, I have no problem with legal opinions using Latin terms - we all need a little in res judicata every now and again - but I have gigantic problems with you making insane arguments that you make deliberately confusing with run-on sentences and backwards clauses in the hope that no one will notice they’re insane.
So you know how Occupy Wall Street folks are communicating? Twitter, sure, and Facebook, yeah, and texts, obviously, but GUESS WHAT ELSE? They’re printing an honest-to-goodness old-fashioned BROADSHEET! It’s a real print newspaper and everything and it’s AWESOME.
They’re calling it “Occupied Wall Street Journal.” Clever, no?
“I would just say very generally, I think people are quite unhappy with the state of the economy and what’s happening. They blame, with some justification, the problems in the financial sector for getting us into this mess, and they’re dissatisfied with the policy response here in Washington. And at some level, I can’t blame them.”—
Kind of reassuring that he at least claims to understand people’s grievances. The policy decisions Bernanke makes often involve a grand tradeoff between helping with macro-level stability (which has an immediate effect on big corporations) and employment growth (which has an immediate effect on individuals). The fact that he’s cognizant of the individual level effects is a big step up from many central bankers - for example, former US Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan, who was a hardcore free-market enthusiast and friend (earlier, a disciple) of Ayn Rand.
Unfortunately Bernanke’s role in actually running the economy is mostly limited to monetary policy, and that’s basically maxed out at this point, so this sympathy is not going to be super useful in terms of concrete impact.
His sympathy may not be useful policy-wise, but it at least makes me feel better, and I’m pretty sure that’s the fed chairman’s job: 1, help guide interest rates and enact sound monetary policy doing the constant inflation/unemployment cost-benefit analysis, and 2, make Elizabeth feel better about the people in power.
At 1:00 p.m. EDT Chris Christie will give a press conference at his office in Trenton. Now, there is no way on God’s green Earth he is announcing a presidential run. One does not announce a presidential run at a press conference in New Jersey after giving reporters about three hours notice. Plus, he’s said about thousand gabillion times, he’s not running. Nonetheless, you know, SHINYTHING.
ALSO, at 1:00 p.m. EDT Apple is starting it’s “HEY IT’S A NEW IPHONE” event.
Given the number of tech geeks and D.C. politicos on Twitter, I’m thinking the whole thing may just implode, so somebody get the Google guys to give it last rites or something.
I’m hoping Christie does his speech a la Steve Jobs. So, you know, “Blah-blah-freedom-blah-blah-government-spending-blah-blah - OH, and one more thing…”
“The government cannot force you to buy things. It can only tax you, draft you, seize and sell your property, arrest you, incarcerate you, and execute you. It cannot tell you to buy insurance, only a gecko can do that.”—
And, you know, to be fair to SCOTUS, in all likelihood they’ll find for the U.S. government, either on the merits, or because there’s no standing. It’s sort of a technical legal point, but the insurance mandate actually doesn’t take effect till 2014. Courts only rule on “cases and controversies,” so you can’t really say, “Hey, I don’t like this law, so I’m going to sue.” You have to have been literally harmed by the law. No one’s been harmed yet, i.e. had to buy insurance, so in the strictest legal sense, probably no one has standing to sue. Which means it’s entirely possible SCOTUS will rule, “Yeah, nice clever arguments, lawyers. But we’re not even going to tell you whether the law is unconstitutional or not. Because you people don’t have the right to sue.”
It’s also entirely possible the court will side with the plaintiffs, i.e. the people who argue the case is unconstitutional, on the standing issue, though probably not on the merits. Plaintiffs argue that this individual mandate is like a train coming down the tracks towards them and they should be able to stop it before they’re metaphorically killed. So the Court could say they have standing, but even if they decide the plaintiffs have standing, I’m willing to bet my entire law school scholarship that SCOTUS will find for the government. Because, you know, mandating insurance coverage purchasing is pretty much the definition of “interstate commerce.” They’re not that unreasonable.
I mean, I’ve been in law school for like a month, people. I’m pretty sure that means I’m basically a lawyer.