Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
“Any errors are the fault of no-one in particular; rather, society itself is to blame.” And: “All errors are the authors’ sole responsibility, but persons aggrieved by any such errors are encouraged to sue the companies which manufactured our computers.” [Kopel/Volokh]
{ 2 comments }
Hikaru Katayamma snapped a pic.
{ 1 comment }
Comedy.com rounds some up.
Now how do you think we might arrange for them to do that here? [Focus-IA]
{ 4 comments }
More fun from The Namby Pamby (language). More: Legal Blog Watch (“slip and fall complaint Mad Libs”).
Kevin Underhill, whose Lowering the Bar is a perennial on our blogroll, has published an annual tidbits roundup (PDF) in the yearly almanac of The Green Bag, itself a publication that should be checked out by anyone interested in humor and skillful writing about law and the legal profession.
{ 5 comments }
{ 3 comments }
As part of a charity effort for the Connecticut bar foundation, Daniel Schwartz has invited Twitter users to summarize a single Supreme Court case of their choice in a single Tweet, that is, in 140 characters or less. Some of the more amusing results:
@gideonstrumpet Gideon v. Wainwright: helping poor people get convicted WITH the assistance of counsel since 1963.
@GoldnI Brown v. Board of Ed: “Hey Eisenhower, just kidding about the conservative thing. Love, Earl Warren.”
@conlawgeek Gonzales v. Raich: “Dude, but I have a valid prescription for… uh… medical… uh… what were we talking about?”
@Popehat Lawrence v. Texas: “….not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
@ThirdTierAmie Buck v. Bell: You’re dumb, your mama’s dumb, even your mama’s mama is dumb! Three generations of imbeciles are enough!
@AdamBonin Pleasant Grove City v Summum: Put up your wacky religious monument in your own damn park, freaks.
@david_m_wagner Wickard v. Filburn: Wheat. Wheat. The Constitution’s dead, they’re talkin’ about wheat.
@coolasmcqueen U.S. v. Nixon: We have the privilege of informing you that you ARE a crook
My own contribution:
@walterolson Bates v. State Bar of Ariz.: OK guys, go ahead and advertise for clients. Might boost our traffic down the road.
[cross-posted from Point of Law]
{ 8 comments }
A parody, right? Must be a parody. (& welcome Legal Blog Watch readers).
{ 3 comments }
Such was supposedly a law firm’s explanation for why they wanted a picture of San Francisco on their web page, though they didn’t have office there. [Clients From Hell]
{ 3 comments }
Kevin Underhill rounds up four amusing miscellanies at his excellent site. From the fourth:
In June, a committee of the Oregon Legislature stuck some language into a bill that would (I think) have briefly redefined “no” as “yes.” Allegedly, Democrats were trying to head off an initiative they feared Republicans would later put on the ballot, asking voters to reject a spending measure. The bill provided that a vote to reject the measure would be counted as a vote to adopt it:
A measure referred to the people by referendum petition may not be adopted unless it receives an affirmative majority of the total votes cast on the measure rejecting the measure. For purposes of this subsection, a measure is considered adopted if it is rejected by the people.
The bill was amended again a few days later to remove the controversial language, after it became public.
P.S. And another installment missed above (“We are all tarnished by your stupidity.”)
{ 4 comments }
In its advertising column. Overlawyered had it last week.
Via Scott Greenfield, from the New York firm of Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman:
{ 7 comments }
Hallowe’en legal humor [Carbolic Smoke Ball]
Calm down, it’s just a satire [Scott Ott/Scrappleface in D.C. Examiner]
{ 1 comment }
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.