« Home | Vices » | Tony Tentative on Texas Test » | Michelman Strikes Back? » | First Amendment Ignorance » | You Mean There was a Case that Didn't Involve a Fo... » | Miss Smith Goes to Washington » | Unanimous Court Backs Abortion Protesters » | The Court Takes on Redistricting, Kennedy Prodded ... » | Beer Review: Harp Lager » | Is Your Law School Too Liberal? » 

Thursday, March 02, 2006 

Bad Behavior in the Court

All hell was breaking loose during the oral arguments for the Texas redistricting case. Justice Ginsburg got sick of the 2 hour long oral argument, so she took a nap. The Washington Post's Washington Sketch columnist Dana Milbank refused to sit in his assigned press seat. Is it asking too much that people focus and behave while the Court is in session?

In my dream world, Chief Justice Roberts would notice these problems, halt the attorney's arguments, smack Ginsburg on the head, leap over the bench, nail Milbank in the face with a flying jump kick, then return to the bench, put his reading glasses back on, look at the attorney, and say "And you were saying?".

I also think it's strange that Professor Bainbridge's post about Ginsburg falling asleep has an alliterative title. There's a lot of that going around apparently.

EDIT: Here's a nice artist's rendering...
Alito's looking over at her, thinking "Did... did she die?". That would be a great way to start a new job: have your co-worker keel over next to you. Souter is too enthralled with the oral arguments to notice that Ruth is sawing logs next to him. Say what you will about the man, he's focused.

Roberts is too much the nice guy. I agree, it would be hilarious!

Yeah, he is too nice to do that. Scalia, however, would probably have a crossbow under the bench, just in case anyone got out of line.

Paintball gun would be better. Non-lethal and marks the offender.

I don't think Scalia cares much about non-lethal, especially with certain members of the Supreme Court bar.

asshole! Fucking Nerd

This is what happens when Pepsi bottle disputes in the law school lounge spill over into cyberspace...

You took my bottle, I will get my revenge, even if it means turning LIBERAL!!

Hey, aren't you in class right now? Shouldn't you be paying attention to important local government law topics?

I stand by my claim that the Pepsi bottle was abandoned property. It was found in a place (a table in the lounge) where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but was in such a condition (mostly consumed, warm, flat) that it was apparent that the true owner (you) had no intention of returning to claim it.

As abandoned property, it becomes the property of whoever finds it and takes possession of it first (me). I disposed of it, as was my right.

You can claim that you did come back for it. That should not matter. You left an item that was in such a devalued, used state (mostly consumed, warm, flat) on a place where it is customary to leave discarded items (napkins, fliers, wrappers). An objective, reasonable person would assume that a Pepsi bottle in that condition was garbage, and therefore abandoned property.

Malarky I say. The Pepsi bottle was not abandoned, it was mislaid at least, but more so it was STOLEN. How does that go for character and fitness? I bottle was taken from the table PRIOR to me leaving, so I never had the opportunity to abandon it.

Goes to show you how far people are willing to go to get a piece of their idol.

Balderdash!

First, the notion that you are my idol is nothing short of deranged.

Second, I dispute the timing that you describe in your comment. Once you got up from the table, turned your back to the Pepsi bottle, and began walking away, the bottle became abandoned. You left the table before I did (leaving the lounge, going up the north stairwell). I left after you began walking away (after abandonment of the bottle), I took possession of the bottle, went into the locker room, and discarded the bottle into the garbage can.

Even though it was a short period of time between you turning and walking away from the bottle, this is sufficient to classify the bottle as abandoned in this sitation. A reasonable person viewing the situation (a mostly used, warm, flat beverage container being left on a table) would consider that property "garbage" and abandoned at that point.

Well, do my a favor, bring your Computer to class next week, and I will watch it while you go to the bathroom. That will be sufficient time for me to claim the "abandoned" property, take it to the corner, sell it, and make my way back. Your logic is ridiculous! Go back to elementary logic class, review the LSAT game section, do something to prevent such shenanigans, from occurring again.

Steve, you are smarter than this. Don't let the blogging, and holding the door open for some impressive people go to your head.

I would like a Mountain Dew to replace the Pepsi you stole from me, or its equivalent, $0.30. The choice is yours.

You are failing to see the context of the situation and are simplifying/ignoring important details. If you were watching my laptop and we had an agreement for you to do so which you acknowledge in your comment (and damn sure I would get an agreement), we would be dealing with a bailment. Physical possession of personal property (my laptop) would be transferred from me (the bailor) to you (the bailee) who would subsequently hold possession of the property. You, as bailee, are not entitled to the use of the property while it is in your possession. Your action of selling it would be a conversion at best (provided that you gave me the money) or theft at worst.

No such agreement existed in the Pepsi bottle context. An objective viewer would see your actions (leaving the bottle on the table, gathering the rest of your belongings, and then turning away to leave) as abandonment of a beverage.

The weakness in your argument is evident by your bizarre, inapt computer analogy, followed by a string of insults about my intelligence. Try to keep that to a minimum while in the court room, Mr. Character and Fitness.

Since I'm feeling nice, I'll have something to compensate you (shut you up) in American Constitutional History.

I sincerely apologize to anyone who actually read all of this exchange.

The PC example NEVER mentioned an agreement, it was solely, bring the PC to class, then leave it and go to the bathroom. What is so complex about this?

Bout time you recognize!

"and I will watch it while you go to the bathroom."

An affirmative statement that you will take possession of the laptop for me.

Regardless, I would be savvy enough to get an agreement to lock you in as a bailee.

yeah "watch it" no statement of an agreement. I watch lots of things without an agreement to do so.

"...bring your Computer to class next week, and I will watch it while you go to the bathroom."

If I do X (bring my computer), you will do Y (watch it while I visit the water closet).

That's enough.

The amount of Property law that I can remember in order to advance a comedic discussion is amazing. I might actually be a competent lawyer someday...

don't lie to yourself, competent is way beyond what you will ever accomplish....

I'm wounded by your comments.

Post a Comment
Edit Comment

About me

  • I'm Steve
  • From Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
  • "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke
  • E-mail Me
My profile