Last night I went out to a happy-hour-ish thing with friends at a Spanish restaurant. My favorite small plate: dates stuffed with chorizo and wrapped in bacon. Let's go through that again: dates + chorizo + bacon. Dates. Chorizo. Bacon.
Heaven.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Sneezy LOL
It's been a while since we had a good lol 'round these parts. To celebrate this happy Thursday, here you go--enjoy!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Why's it called a brief if it's so long?
My life has been taken over. I am no longer in control. The Brief has the power now.
My client is San Diego County. I'm arguing--against the weight of my moral convictions, but flowing with the current of constitutional jurisprudence--that requiring welfare aid applicants to consent to an intrusive search of their homes as a condition of receiving assistance is totally, completely, 100% okay under the Fourth Amendment. Of course, the word "intrusive" will appear nowhere in my brief. Neither will the word "violation." And I'll avoid "search" like the motherfucking plague. Unless it's to say something like, "The unintrusive home visit is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and under no balancing test should it be held a violation of the applicant's rights."
Headings! Who was the insane person who decided that brief headings should be and four lines long and in complete sentences and generally much more like the first sentence of a paragraph than anything resembling a layperson's understanding of headings?
ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION HEARINGS DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION TO HOUCHINS CREATED BY RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS AND ITS PROGENY BECAUSE THE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY APPLIED TO CRIMINAL TRIALS IS INAPPLICABLE TO EXECUTIVE PROCEEDINGS, PARTICULARLY THOSE INVOLVING SENSITIVE JUDGMENTS AT THE CORE OF EXECUTIVE POWER.
I am not even kidding.
I did not write that heading, in case you were confused.
The case that is the basis for the competition, and my brief, is Sanchez v. County of San Diego, 464 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2006), rehearing en banc denied 483 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2007). That is probably not bluebooked correctly. I do not care.
I've got some clever arguments in my pocket, and my partner is quite good, and I am enjoying this, sort of. But, ahh, I long for the days of having time to actually read for actual class! The hearsay rules are just passing me by. No bother. For another 13 days, I submit my will to the will of The Brief, and on we go.
My client is San Diego County. I'm arguing--against the weight of my moral convictions, but flowing with the current of constitutional jurisprudence--that requiring welfare aid applicants to consent to an intrusive search of their homes as a condition of receiving assistance is totally, completely, 100% okay under the Fourth Amendment. Of course, the word "intrusive" will appear nowhere in my brief. Neither will the word "violation." And I'll avoid "search" like the motherfucking plague. Unless it's to say something like, "The unintrusive home visit is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and under no balancing test should it be held a violation of the applicant's rights."
Headings! Who was the insane person who decided that brief headings should be and four lines long and in complete sentences and generally much more like the first sentence of a paragraph than anything resembling a layperson's understanding of headings?
ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION HEARINGS DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION TO HOUCHINS CREATED BY RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS AND ITS PROGENY BECAUSE THE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY APPLIED TO CRIMINAL TRIALS IS INAPPLICABLE TO EXECUTIVE PROCEEDINGS, PARTICULARLY THOSE INVOLVING SENSITIVE JUDGMENTS AT THE CORE OF EXECUTIVE POWER.
I am not even kidding.
I did not write that heading, in case you were confused.
The case that is the basis for the competition, and my brief, is Sanchez v. County of San Diego, 464 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2006), rehearing en banc denied 483 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2007). That is probably not bluebooked correctly. I do not care.
I've got some clever arguments in my pocket, and my partner is quite good, and I am enjoying this, sort of. But, ahh, I long for the days of having time to actually read for actual class! The hearsay rules are just passing me by. No bother. For another 13 days, I submit my will to the will of The Brief, and on we go.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The one where this blog states the obvious
Hangnails are really fucking annoying when there aren't any clippers handy.
Friday, February 20, 2009
I'll LOL you
Rod Benson is indeed too much. Check out his site for its newest feature, LOLBoom. Also just 'cause it's hilarious.
Rod, whenever you need a boom tho girl, I'm here for you buddy.
Rod, whenever you need a boom tho girl, I'm here for you buddy.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
NYC
I miss it. And not just the food.
People just don't dress like this in Silicon Valley.
New York, I'll come back to you soon.
People just don't dress like this in Silicon Valley.
New York, I'll come back to you soon.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Morning ride
As I rode onto campus this morning, I saw something fluttering low above the grass to my right. It looked like a seahorse, with wings! My first hummingbird. Good morning.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
CrossFit
Blame whatever you want. Blame California. Getting winded climbing one flight of stairs. Motivational company. The pants not fitting the same way anymore. Who knows what broke the camel's back. Whatever the reason, I am back in the gym. And not at any old time: we're talking 6:30 in the morning. Who am I? Where has saisai gone? What has taken my place?
In all seriousness, it's been incredibly nice to be physically active again. I didn't realize how much I missed feeling able and strong. I like seeing progress, feeling my muscles get sore after a particularly hard day. This all fell by the wayside for over a year and a half as law school took over my life. I'm taking it back!
Many of you loyal readers may be unfamiliar with the beast that is CrossFit. It is scary. These people are scary. The barrier to entry is high. The similarities to a cult are not insignificant. I'm lucky to have guides around that have been doing this for a while; even so, when I see sumo dead lift or squat clean or 21 reps 95 lb thrusters as the workout of the day I can't help but think, "Uh, wtf, I'm gonna go try to do A pull-up now mmmkay?" So, I'm easing into it. For now, cheesy as it sounds, every new workout is a new adventure. More updates forthcoming.
In all seriousness, it's been incredibly nice to be physically active again. I didn't realize how much I missed feeling able and strong. I like seeing progress, feeling my muscles get sore after a particularly hard day. This all fell by the wayside for over a year and a half as law school took over my life. I'm taking it back!
Many of you loyal readers may be unfamiliar with the beast that is CrossFit. It is scary. These people are scary. The barrier to entry is high. The similarities to a cult are not insignificant. I'm lucky to have guides around that have been doing this for a while; even so, when I see sumo dead lift or squat clean or 21 reps 95 lb thrusters as the workout of the day I can't help but think, "Uh, wtf, I'm gonna go try to do A pull-up now mmmkay?" So, I'm easing into it. For now, cheesy as it sounds, every new workout is a new adventure. More updates forthcoming.
Monday, February 16, 2009
"What are you doing right now?"
Facebook status updates "are the appropriate places for spontaneous bursts of joy and being. You shouldn't do it at work, you shouldn't do it in the middle of a conversation, you shouldn't do it on the street, you shouldn't turn to a stranger on the bus, you shouldn't leave it on someone's cellphone. But on this grand constantly updating Christmas card that we are all free to access or withdraw from at any time, we finally have a polite space for "My sponge smells like a hot dog.'"
Thursday, February 12, 2009
"Colorable"
How can a word mean two contradictory things at once?
Colorable:
1. seemingly valid or genuine (a colorable claim in law)
2. intended to deceive; counterfeit (colorable and false pretenses)
WTF, mate?
Colorable:
1. seemingly valid or genuine (a colorable claim in law)
2. intended to deceive; counterfeit (colorable and false pretenses)
WTF, mate?
Carnage
I've avoided blogging about the layoffs in BigLaw because I'm not ATL, but today has been just insane and deserves some attention.
So far today 828 attorneys and staff have been laid off from firms big and important enough to garner Above the Law attention. That's eight hundred and twenty eight people just today. One firm, Luce Forward, even rescinded the offers it had made to people graduating in 2010. What those people will do for gainful employment in this economy, who knows.
Reactions are as expected:
Dear Jesus: Thank you for this box of documents I am about to review. Amen.
If you know a lawyer who was laid off today, buy the poor soul a drink, would you?
So far today 828 attorneys and staff have been laid off from firms big and important enough to garner Above the Law attention. That's eight hundred and twenty eight people just today. One firm, Luce Forward, even rescinded the offers it had made to people graduating in 2010. What those people will do for gainful employment in this economy, who knows.
Reactions are as expected:
Dear Jesus: Thank you for this box of documents I am about to review. Amen.
If you know a lawyer who was laid off today, buy the poor soul a drink, would you?
Today's must-read
"Online the promise of anonymity, though far flimsier than most suspect, unlocks something ugly and menacing in ostensibly normal people."
"[AutoAdmit] offered its patrons a peculiar, vicarious kick: It allowed people who were straitlaced and risk-averse enough to want to be lawyers in the first place to become briefly, crazily irresponsible. . . . They could spout outrageous lies, or . . . invent entirely new personalities for themselves, invariably as homophobes, racists, or misogynists. Speaking a common language and flouting the same taboos, such posters became a close-knit fraternity of complete strangers who rarely even knew one another’s names. But for all their trash talk, many could even feel principled about their misbehavior; after all, they were free-speech absolutists. And they became cyber-survivalists when anyone tried to tone down or remove their posts."
"Fearing that any interference would prompt the kind of mass exodus that had sunk the Princeton Review’s message board [when it took down offensive messages], Cohen had kept his hands off his own site. But the result, he now concedes, was that he lost his website to “parasites” and “freaks.” Even his timid, belated attempts to weed out the worst abuses, an effort Ciolli seconded, prompted open rebellion."
"Last spring, Cohen quietly removed the offending threads. He’d have done so sooner, he says, had he been asked more nicely."
Here.
"[AutoAdmit] offered its patrons a peculiar, vicarious kick: It allowed people who were straitlaced and risk-averse enough to want to be lawyers in the first place to become briefly, crazily irresponsible. . . . They could spout outrageous lies, or . . . invent entirely new personalities for themselves, invariably as homophobes, racists, or misogynists. Speaking a common language and flouting the same taboos, such posters became a close-knit fraternity of complete strangers who rarely even knew one another’s names. But for all their trash talk, many could even feel principled about their misbehavior; after all, they were free-speech absolutists. And they became cyber-survivalists when anyone tried to tone down or remove their posts."
"Fearing that any interference would prompt the kind of mass exodus that had sunk the Princeton Review’s message board [when it took down offensive messages], Cohen had kept his hands off his own site. But the result, he now concedes, was that he lost his website to “parasites” and “freaks.” Even his timid, belated attempts to weed out the worst abuses, an effort Ciolli seconded, prompted open rebellion."
"Last spring, Cohen quietly removed the offending threads. He’d have done so sooner, he says, had he been asked more nicely."
Here.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Libs
Cheesy music is leaking into the reading room from a movie being shown in the room next door. Girl behind me: "This is the soundtrack to our lives."
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A-Rod + Steroids > Michael Phelps + Ganga?
From Chris Lund at PrawfsBlawg:
A-Rod and Michael Phelps: It's surprising in combination. Michael Phelps is caught using marijuana, a non-performance-enhancing drug, a single time. And he gets a three-month suspension from USA swimming, dropped by Kellogg's, and criminally investigated by the local sheriff's department. A-Rod is caught using steroids, an illegal performance-enhancing drug, for three years. He lies about it. And apparently he will not be charged with any crimes, and may not even be in breach of his employment contract. One even wonders if A-Rod has a cause of action against the Players' Union relating to the unauthorized disclosure... Really?In related news, I wondered several times during the recent Australian Open tennis tournament who was on the juice. My best guess so far: of the men, Fernando Verdasco; of the women, Carla Suarez Navarro. Just guesses people: please nobody sue me.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Unexpected
I'm reading an article from 1952 called "The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation" by Walter J. Blum and Harry Kalven, Jr., 19 U. Chi. L. Rev. 417, and just spat water all over my keyboard over footnote 180: "This is as good a place as any to quote the Communist Manifesto."
Funny ha-ha
Some time yesterday was spent dissecting the anatomy of a joke. (This is one of those things Wikipedia is actually pretty good at.)
Here's a good one.
Happy Wednesday, people.
Here's a good one.
Happy Wednesday, people.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
You never know what you'll find in the congressional record
On April 17, 1975, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) introduced S. 1450, "a bill respecting the decriminalization of personal, private use of marihuana." Supporters of the notion included William F. Buckley and Ann Landers. 121 Cong. Rec. 10,575-84 (1975).
Monday, February 2, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Superbowl 43
I should've expected it given the state of the economy, but the ads were lame--totally forgettable.
Also I could've done without basically the whole first half. Really almost everything until the last 10 minutes of play was also, unfortunately, totally forgettable.
Until 2010...
Also I could've done without basically the whole first half. Really almost everything until the last 10 minutes of play was also, unfortunately, totally forgettable.
Until 2010...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
