Comments on: Legal Funnies! http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/ Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about. Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:49:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: mythago http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-296207 mythago Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:29 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-296207 DEFINITELY the best footnote ever. And Bork is no surprise. Those kinds think the only lawsuit that isn't "frivolous" is the one they filed. DEFINITELY the best footnote ever.

And Bork is no surprise. Those kinds think the only lawsuit that isn’t “frivolous” is the one they filed.

]]> By: Legal Antics http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-296029 Legal Antics Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:36:44 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-296029 <strong>My kind of footnote.</strong> Via Alas! A Blog, comes the following memorable footnote from the Scooter Libby fiasco. The footnote refers to an amicas brief submitted by 12 well respected law professors. From the Judge's Order:It is an impressive show of public service when My kind of footnote.

Via Alas! A Blog, comes the following memorable footnote from the Scooter Libby fiasco. The footnote refers to an amicas brief submitted by 12 well respected law professors. From the Judge’s Order:It is an impressive show of public service when

]]> By: Nick http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-296009 Nick Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:03:26 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-296009 I didn't see a reference to the actual brief that was filed. Here it is: <a href="http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_070608_Amicus_Bork.pdf" rel="nofollow">Link to Just One Minute</a> Here is where they pissed the judge off: <blockquote>decided the other way. This Court=s opinion of April 27, 2006 (United States v. Libby, 429 F. Supp. 2d 27), presents one side of that debate, but amici believe there is another side</blockquote> No wonder the judge was so snippy. They just rode into town and trashed the judges decision that the prosecutors appointment was legal. That opinion then negates the entire trial that the judge just presided over. I didn’t see a reference to the actual brief that was filed. Here it is:

Link to Just One Minute

Here is where they pissed the judge off:

decided the other way. This Court=s opinion of April 27, 2006 (United States v. Libby, 429 F. Supp. 2d 27), presents one side of that debate, but amici believe there is another side

No wonder the judge was so snippy. They just rode into town and trashed the judges decision that the prosecutors appointment was legal. That opinion then negates the entire trial that the judge just presided over.

]]> By: Tom T. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-295999 Tom T. Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:55:26 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-295999 I don't know all 12 of those professors, but Barnett represented the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative before the Supreme Court, and also authored an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas arguing against sodomy laws. He has written in opposition to the War on Drugs and the Rehnquist Court’s deference to state lawmaking. Whatever other disagreements one might have with his politics, it strikes me as unfair for the court to suggest that he only chooses to write on behalf of wealthy or connected clients. Dershowitz takes many cases pro bono, particularly involving indigent criminal defendants. Again, there may be plenty to disagree with in other aspects of his politics, but there’s not really a basis for the court to suggest that he lends his name only to cases involving rich or powerful defendants. I don’t know all 12 of those professors, but Barnett represented the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative before the Supreme Court, and also authored an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas arguing against sodomy laws. He has written in opposition to the War on Drugs and the Rehnquist Court’s deference to state lawmaking. Whatever other disagreements one might have with his politics, it strikes me as unfair for the court to suggest that he only chooses to write on behalf of wealthy or connected clients.

Dershowitz takes many cases pro bono, particularly involving indigent criminal defendants. Again, there may be plenty to disagree with in other aspects of his politics, but there’s not really a basis for the court to suggest that he lends his name only to cases involving rich or powerful defendants.

]]> By: Joe http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-295942 Joe Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:03:08 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/legal-funnies/#comment-295942 HA! Those are funny. I really don't like Bork btw. His comment on the Ninth amendment (a <b>blot</b>) really annoyed me. HA! Those are funny. I really don’t like Bork btw. His comment on the Ninth amendment (a blot) really annoyed me.

]]>