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
No twitter account, but my entry would be:
Orbison v. 2 Live Crew – It’s just a joke Roy, get over it.
[Ah, the formatting got messed up on post. So let me try this. Feel free to delete the original]
I am not going to make full tweets, but:
District of Columbia v. Heller. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
DeSteffano v. Ricci. Soto is not such a wise latina.
Cooper v. Aaron. You know that thing in Brown? We meant it.
Roe v. Wade. We have discovered a new right in the penumbra of our collective hindquarters.
Miranda v. Az. The 5th A requires cops to use specific script we discovered almost two hundred years after enactment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio. Yes, you can speak freely. You can even vaguely suggest you are going to kill us. This is not Canada.
——————————————————
These can be grouped together.
R.A.V. v. St. Paul. Cross burning is protected speech.
Virginia v. Black. No it is not.
Texas v. Johnson. But you can still burn flags.
—————————————————————
Griswold v. Connecticut. The pursuit of happiness.
NYT v. Sullivan. …in which we give rise to the entire tabloid reporting industry.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. Get a life. Seriously, just get a life.
————————————–
And these group together:
Kennedy v. La. It’s cruel & unusual to give death for raping his 8 year old daughter and rupturing wall between her vagina & anus.
Dist. of Columbia v. Heller. Kennedy v. La. is hereby mooted.
——————————
Okay those last two are more grim than funny, but the Kennedy decision still infuriates me, so excuse me if I vent. (And yeah, i used heller twice. so sue me.)
I’m twitterless as well but…
Terry v. Ohio – Actin’ squirrely can get you frisked, surely.
Gonzales v. Castle Rock-You’re on your own.
Loving v. Virginia – Yes, Virginia, there is a Due Process Clause.
Joe
Actually it was the equal protection clause. but otherwise a decent riff.
my caption for Loving v. Virginia:
“Virginia against against love and Loving. Love and Loving wins. Virginia is (now) for lovers.”
A.W.
Loving was both due process and equal protection. From part II of the decision: “These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
I considered using “equal protection,” but felt that “due process,” since it was shorter, better mimicked the original statement.
joe
i stand corrected. mind you the due process argument is silly, which is probably why i forgot about it in the first place, but its there.