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 }
Mike Semple Piggot at the well known British law site, Charon QC, 
