Our mission is to expose and remedy corruption in the Probate Court of Cook County, Illinois. We assist, educate and enlighten families of the dead, the dying, the disabled and the aged to better understand their rights in order to protect themselves from the excesses of the Probate Court of Cook County. ProbateSharks.com is dedicated to networking the human element of people to people. We join together in reforming the corrupt Cook County Probate Court system.
You Must Watch Dogs Reenact Supreme Court Arguments Right Now By Joe Patrice
If there is any justice in the world, this will revolutionize the way you consume Supreme Court news. Because the Supreme Court continues to ban video coverage of their proceedings, we’re either left waiting for Lyle to get to a phone or listening to horrible audio clips against a sketch artist’s backdrop.
Now we have a new tool to make Supreme Court coverage downright amazing. Recognizing the power of cat videos on the Internet, HBO’s John Oliver has recreated a Supreme Court oral argument playing audio clips over video of dogs representing the Supreme Court (and a chicken pecking away as the stenographer). The finished product is almost embarrassingly compelling. And Oliver encourages everyone in the media to use his raw footage to create their own SCOTUS coverage, so the ball is in your court, CNN.
Read on to see this work of genius. Come for the oral argument coverage, stay for the point where Justice Alito tries to hump Justice Kagan….
Nine days ago, Judge Richard Kopf wrote an article about the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby that suggested, “[a]s the kids say, it is time for the Court to stfu.” It was a good post, but something that seemed of such little controversy that we relegated it to an in-blurb mention within Non-Sequiturs.
And then all manner of shock and hand-wringing commenced.
It’s not the first time a federal judge received criticism for speaking out. Are jurists like Judge Kopf out of control?
I’m not going to wade much into defending his precise statement on Hobby Lobby. The attacks on it are so full of sanctimony that they deserve short shrift. But what is it with the disrespecting of “lower” federal judges, reprimanding them like disobedient children, simply because they have opinions?
Judge Kopf’s statement has been plastered all over the place, but few place it in its appropriate context:
Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent — this term and several past terms have proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids say, it is time for the Court to stfu.
That’s pretty mainstream analysis punctuated by a fun bit of Internet lingo. What it isn’t is a signal that Judge Kopf is about to go rogue and disrespect established precedent. He would — I presume — rule for the plaintiff if a case indistinguishable from Hobby Lobby entered his courtroom. It would be a ruling replete with dicta about the problems with that decision, but it would uphold Hobby Lobby nonetheless.
Judges are capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously after all.
It’s actually embarrassing for us as a culture that Judge Kopf is getting more flack for offering concise analysis of the legal landscape — which is kind of his job — than he got for the “ignorant sluts” fashion advice column, which fairly deserved critique.
Does his “stfu” comment show profound and unacceptable disrespect for the Supreme Court? Who cares? Judges aren’t asked to swear their allegiance to the members of the Supreme Court like they’re superior officers. Judges must respect precedent, they don’t have to agree with it. On the flip side, Justice Scalia can go around fanning the flames for violent militia members by suggesting that people launch an armed revolution against the United States Constitution he’s sworn to uphold. How is that not a bigger ethical breach than intimating that the Supreme Court made a poor policy decision that harms the democratic process? Oh, that’s right, because the Supreme Court is not subject to the same ethical rules as the rest of the judiciary. What’s up with that? Is everyone so fixated on the primacy of THE SUPREME COURT that we consistently ignore their breaches of common sense ethical obligations and blow out of proportion the fact that a trial court judge has access to Urban Dictionary?
Reading between the lines of the criticisms, Judge Kopf’s crime was daring to — in a conversational setting — question the Supreme Court’s infallibility. Justice Scalia isn’t the Pope as much as he might want to be. Implicit in that is the idea that judges beyond The Nine lack the right to hold legal opinions. That seems to run contrary to how they got their jobs in the first place (excluding the pure patronage appointments).
If we really believe federal judges are among the finest legal minds in the country (let’s operate under that assumption for the moment), then why cut them off at the knees whenever they express an opinion on the development of the law? Judge Jed Rakoff got reversed for having the gall to suggest that “Chevron” means less than “letting revolving door sycophants set favorable settlements for the companies they want to work for” and drew some criticism for penning a smart piece about how the government has dropped the ball on financial crimes. Judge Shira Scheindlin got removed from stop-and-frisk cases for suggesting that she treated both parties equally rather than leaning toward the government. So obviously the law couldn’t benefit from these voices. In the words of Judge Kopf, district court judges “are the TTT of the federal judiciary.”
Even the next tier up is getting flak for being too big for their breeches. Motorola, represented by Tom Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell (and SCOTUSblog fame), has filed a motion objecting to a decision by a panel that included Judge Posner. Based on the Motorola brief — which is admittedly a one-sided account — it does sound like Judge Posner may be going a tad afield by converting a motion ruling into a decision on the merits. At least he’s consistent — he’s never really felt that he’s an inferior court. But the motion also criticizes Judge Posner for not taking the word of the Solicitor General’s office at face value. The Supreme Court gets to make snide comments about the government and the quality of its representation all the time, and it’s not somehow a travesty when a lower court — excuse me, Judge Posner, an “intermediate appellate court” — does the same thing.
It’s more than just the civic importance of understanding that judges have thoughts and opinions, it’s about an unwarranted excision of the best and brightest from the evolution of the law. When the Supreme Court gave the judiciary the power of judicial review in a fit of judicial activism (yeah, that’s right textualists and originalists, that’s what Marbury was — so to be faithful to your philosophies you should really never rule on these cases), it didn’t vest that power solely within itself.
Last week there were rumors that Judge Kopf may give up blogging over this incident. He’s already done that once and mercifully reversed himself.
We’re hoping he doesn’t ever stfu. Remembering Alexander Bickel’s passive virtues and the Hobby Lobby cases Motorola to 7th Circuit: Make Judge Posner follow the rules [Reuters] Pandora’s Supreme Court [Huffington Post] Err on the Side of Allowing Speech [New York Times] Judge Might Give Up Blogging After Telling Supreme Court To ‘STFU’ [Business Insider] Earlier: Justice Scalia Literally Encourages People To Commit Treason Judge Rakoff Rips The Government For Dropping The Ball On Financial Crimes Ouch! So What Does That Make Magistrate Judges? Federal Judge Suggests That Women Lawyers Not Dress Like ‘Ignorant Sluts’
* A lawyer fresh out of law school botched a domestic violence case by gushing all over Tom Hanks… who was serving as a juror. Which, in fairness, was awfully Big of him. [TMZ]
* Federal prosecutors are seeking at least 27 years in prison for a Massachusetts man who authorities say plotted to kill and eat his children based on a search of his home and car, which is presumably a Saturn. As one law professor observed, “Perhaps the lawyer will make a free exercise argument and claim that eating children is a requirement of his religion.” [CNN]
* If you’re going to drink and drive, be sure to toss a few back with the judge first. [KVUE]
* A criminal defense lawyer who begins every cross by making the cop look more humane and respectable. I thought the public defender from My Cousin Vinny was the lowest criminal defense could go in the comical incompetence department. [Katz Justice]
* Putin crony claims 100 percent of profits in a “public” oil company by flat ignoring minority shareholders. Shhhh! Stop giving Exxon ideas. [Breaking Energy]
* Elizabeth Wurtzel knows music (a subject she covered for the New Yorker for New York Magazine). In this article, she writes about The Replacements (something Wurtzel has made her past employers, including Boies Schiller, become familiar with). [The Daily Beast]
* On Monday, the American Constitution Society will host a preview of the upcoming Supreme Court session. Panelists include Pamela Harris, Randy Barnett, Joshua Civin, Andrew Pincus, and David Strauss. [American Constitution Society]
* Then next Tuesday, The Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies will host a symposium titled “The Supreme Court: Past and Prologue: A Look at the October 2012 and 2013 Terms.” Panelists include Tom Goldstein, Marcia Coyle, and Howard Bashman. [How Appealing]
We know what you must be thinking: how could the Chief Justice of the United States have anything in common with the woman who wrote and starred in Girls, the overtly sexualized hit series on HBO? Chief Justice John Roberts thinks that corporations are people whose money talks, while Lena Dunham often appears naked on the small screen while contemplating raunchy sex acts. The pair seem like complete opposites — but as we know from that fabulous Paula Abdul song, opposites sometimes attract.
As it turns out, Chief Justice Roberts and Dunham were both big hits this year with liberal thinkers. Yes, you read that correctly. Roberts, once a bastion of conservative hope, is now being praised as a liberal hero alongside a woman who starred in an Obama ad that likened first-time voting to losing one’s virginity.
They’ve even been named on a few year-end lists together. Let’s check them out….
As noted by the Wall Street Journal, Roberts and Dunham were both included in Esquire’s “Americans of the Year” issue, as well as the Atlantic’s list of the “Brave Thinkers of 2012.” Aside from being named on these lists, they differ in every way. The 57-year-old Chief Justice graduated from Harvard Law and served at the Justice Department, in the Office of White House Counsel, and as a D.C. Circuit judge, before heading to SCOTUS. Dunham, a 26-year-old writer/actress, graduated from college in 2008, where she studied creative writing. She’s been nominated for four Emmy Awards for Girls, but thus far, she hasn’t won any of them.
While Roberts is praised by Esquire for his “nimbleness” in “sav[ing] the court’s credibility,” Dunham is praised for being “the emblem of something — it’s just that no one’s sure what.” Over at the Atlantic, Chief Justice Roberts is recognized as being “both brave and shrewd,” and Dunham receives props for “acting like an underage street hooker to turn her boyfriend on.” Justice Scalia must be laughing his ass off right now.
So, while other Supreme Court justices are doling out career advice on Sesame Street and being named to Glamour’s annual “Women of the Year” list, the Chief Justice of the United States has been relegated to sharing a slot on multiple lists with a woman who, while she may be a genius in her own right, receives the most praise for her graphic depictions of this generation’s waves of sexual frustration.
The Wall Street Journal went so far as to name Chief Justice Roberts its “Liberal Man of the Year.” Perhaps this is Roberts’s karmic bitchslap for Citizens United. Either way, we think he should follow the WSJ’s advice and hire Lena Dunham as a clerk — it’d certainly be entertaining, and maybe she’d even get to proposition her boss again, just like she did at her law firm job on Girls. We’d totally watch that episode. Review & Outlook: Liberal Man of the Year [Wall Street Journal] John Roberts: An American of the Year [Politics Blog / Esquire] Lena Dunham Is Building an Empire [Esquire] Brave Thinkers 2012: John Roberts [The Atlantic] Brave Thinkers 2012: Lena Dunham [The Atlantic]
If there is any justice in the world, this will revolutionize the way you consume Supreme Court news. Because the Supreme Court continues to ban video coverage of their proceedings, we’re either left waiting for Lyle to get to a phone or listening to horrible audio clips against a sketch artist’s backdrop.
Nine days ago, Judge Richard Kopf 
* A lawyer fresh out of law school botched a domestic violence case by gushing all over Tom Hanks… who was serving as a juror. Which, in fairness, was awfully Big of him. [
We know what you must be thinking: how could the Chief Justice of the United States have anything in common with the woman who wrote and starred in