Wednesday, December 31, 2003


A recent link from Howard Bashman's How Appealing and another one from Stephen Green's VodkaPundit have boosted our traffic considerably, for which we are very grateful. But both painted Spitbull as a law blog, which doesn't quite fit.

I confess to being a lawyer, and my squinty view of the world owes much to the indoctrination I received during the three years I was marooned in law school. Nevertheless, I actually practiced law only for two (mostly miserable but entirely debt-retiring) years. For the past nine years I've been a kind of meta-lawyer for the Eagan, Minnesota outpost of a Canadian concern, as my nom de plume suggests (or would suggest, if you happened to have page four of the Fall 1997 issue of the Green Bag close at hand. Not that the article is available there; that would be too easy. You might want to try this site, which I've heard has lots of legal-type stuff.) Also, I usually blog about other topics, such as the many uses of the human fist.

And while my co-blogger Eloise has been known to muse on legal matters, her persona remains maddeningly mysterious, even to me. Only she can say for sure whether her varied experience includes unholy congress with the law.

So I hope none of you lawyers out there feel like you've been hoodwinked. Aw geez, come on! You're so pathetic when you look at me like that! Okay, I tell you what--here are a couple of legal bones to gnaw on. Just don't expect regular meals, you mutts.

First a Kozinski follow-up. One year when I was in law school, Kozinski served on the three-judge panel that presided over the finals of the moot court competition. He seemed to see his role to be making the student lawyers as uncomfortable as possible. He asked a lot of questions, of course, but his chief agent of provocation was his nose. How so? He blew it. Often. Loudly. With a paisley handkerchief (I may be misremembering this last bit, but if it's not true it should be). The effect of this was so risible, at least to those of us in the audience, that it must have been intentional.

Now a Posner follow-up. Two items of recent Posneria well worth checking out are available on or through the news page of the University of Chicago Law School website. There is his review of Evan Gerstmann's book Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution, originally published in The New Republic. Gerstmann argues that Supreme Court precedent supports an equal protection right to homosexual marriage. Posner's verdict: the book is "careful, interesting, worthwhile, though ultimately unconvincing." If the following quote doesn't make you want to read the whole review, there's something wrong with you:
It is a strange implication of Gerstmann's approach that if a man wanted to marry his sterile sister, his eighty-year-old grandmother, three other women, two men, and his chihuahua, a court would have to turn somersaults to come up with a "compelling state interest" that would forbid these matches.
Item two is a recording of a radio debate between Posner and an M.I.T. political philosopher named Joshua Cohen on the merits of deliberative democracy. Cohen thinks there are many; Posner thinks there are essentially none. Highlight: a caller late in the show characterizes Posner's views as "bordering on fascism." Posner responds with a genial chuckle.


Post a Comment