The Federalist Society knows stuff. Apparently far more than someone like me (and I note again for the record that they did not invite me to their big celebration, though it could have just been an oversight). How do I know this is big? The Big One. Mr. Big? Because they want a constitutional amendment about it. And you don’t amend the Constitution over small things. That would be Democratic, like that equal rights amendment thingy.
So what is the Big One? Is it putting innocent people to death? Is it convicting innocent people on flawed eyewitness ID? Is it having more people in prison than any country on the face of the earth? Nope.
Obviously, you aren’t Federalist Society material either. Shame.
No, the Big One, demanding an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is . . . relying on foreign law in American court decisions! That’s right. This is the gravest evil facing our society. And you were worried about weapons of mass destruction? Get a life.
I learned about this at Volokh, where all important Federalist news comes out when it doesn’t involved embarrassing photos (for that, I turn to Above The Law). The argument is (in my deeply abbreviated version) that when our forefathers wrote the Constitution, they were trying to break away from foreigners and their law. So, it only makes sense that our courts shouldn’t be allowed to rely on it.
As I read it, I had a day dream. Having heard oral argument at the Supreme Court in the very important action of Dog Poop Girl v. Solove (if you read The Future of Reputation, you’ll know what I’m talking about here), Justice Greenfield (it is my dream) hears of a decision by a french court on how to remedy the disastrous issue of privacy on the internet. In France, they call it “le internet,” but it’s really the same thing. I read the decision and it’s brilliant. It creates a cause of action and procedures that perfectly balances the rights and needs of all parties, including the chilling affect on everyone else on both sides. It is perfect.
But I can’t use it. It’s French, and the Constitution forbids my use of foreign law. I discuss the problem with my fellow Federalist/Libertarian Justices, Bennett, Gideon, Black, Matlock, Malum, Katz, Guest and Other Steve. We all agree that as much as the French decision solves everything, everything, our integrity precludes any reliance on foreign law.
And you wonder why they won’t let me drink the good wine in a tuxedo at the Federalist Society soiree. I am definitely not Federalist Society material.
So what is the Big One? Is it putting innocent people to death? Is it convicting innocent people on flawed eyewitness ID? Is it having more people in prison than any country on the face of the earth? Nope.
Obviously, you aren’t Federalist Society material either. Shame.
No, the Big One, demanding an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is . . . relying on foreign law in American court decisions! That’s right. This is the gravest evil facing our society. And you were worried about weapons of mass destruction? Get a life.
I learned about this at Volokh, where all important Federalist news comes out when it doesn’t involved embarrassing photos (for that, I turn to Above The Law). The argument is (in my deeply abbreviated version) that when our forefathers wrote the Constitution, they were trying to break away from foreigners and their law. So, it only makes sense that our courts shouldn’t be allowed to rely on it.
As I read it, I had a day dream. Having heard oral argument at the Supreme Court in the very important action of Dog Poop Girl v. Solove (if you read The Future of Reputation, you’ll know what I’m talking about here), Justice Greenfield (it is my dream) hears of a decision by a french court on how to remedy the disastrous issue of privacy on the internet. In France, they call it “le internet,” but it’s really the same thing. I read the decision and it’s brilliant. It creates a cause of action and procedures that perfectly balances the rights and needs of all parties, including the chilling affect on everyone else on both sides. It is perfect.
But I can’t use it. It’s French, and the Constitution forbids my use of foreign law. I discuss the problem with my fellow Federalist/Libertarian Justices, Bennett, Gideon, Black, Matlock, Malum, Katz, Guest and Other Steve. We all agree that as much as the French decision solves everything, everything, our integrity precludes any reliance on foreign law.
And you wonder why they won’t let me drink the good wine in a tuxedo at the Federalist Society soiree. I am definitely not Federalist Society material.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So as the Federalist member of the court, I guess I will be writing that opinion.
I believe it is left to the senior Justice of the Federalist wing to decide who writes.
Will there be a bong at these conferences?
I assumed I WAS the senior Federalist member. Silly me.
A bong? What is that? I don’t understand. Tee hee hee.
Will you children pipe down! (get it?)
Now, YS, in light of the overarching importance of a constitutional amendment forbidding the consideration of foreign law, we are now ALL federalists.
You, however, are indeed the most senior federalist amongst us. How come YOU weren’t invited to the party? Did you not get your Republican Party
kickbackdues in on time?What makes you think I’m not sending this from my iPhone from inside the Mayflower Hotel during the Lawyer’s Convention?
iPhone! You are a hoot. Like anyone at the Mayflower would even know how to use an iPhone! They’re still wearing garters to hold their socks up. LOL.
By the way, I look damn good in a tuxedo.
So does my son.
So should I send him a Federalist Society membership application? It’s a prerequisite.
I hope he at least ties his own bowtie.
I can’t find a tie-your-own bowtie that doesn’t have that stupid adjuster thing in the back. The stupid adjuster thing is a definite no-no with a wing collar (Miss Manners would say that the black tie is a no-no with the wing collar too, but what does she know about menswear?). Scott, does your suit bespeaker bespeak ties too?
Wing collar? Oh my. It’s really no wonder the two of you aren’t here in the Mayflower with me drinking with the Chief Justice.
By the way, if I’m lucky I will have half the Supremes doing body shots off of Ann Coulter by the end of the night.
Of course, Mark. The tie has to be fitted properly like anything else. The adjuster thing really does ruin the mood, you know.
And, I realize that there’s no need to tell you this, but you need a winter tie and a summer tie, not to mention white for formal occasions.
I wonder what part of the anatomy Associate Justice Thomas will select? Please keep abreast, Shawn.
Dear lord. Is there anyone in the “practical blawosphere” that can tie a decent bow tie? Sad really.
So far Justice Thomas has been a wallflower. Buzz-kill. However, Justice Alito is looking quite frisky. He’s got a crazed look in his eyes. I’m not sure I can keep him out of the Post.
Meanwhile, the Chief and I have shared a bottle of 18 year old Laphoaig and we both agree Tech is te better team against Oklahoma. Go Tech!
You live a very rich fantasy life.