The Quantum Mechanic

See
http://volokh.com/posts/1201654063.shtml
and
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_01_27-2008_02_02.shtml

Damn that Volokh Conspiracy commenter for finding me another webcomic to waste time on.

As a legal geek and mild horror fan, I find Supernatural Law nicely amusing and a fun read. Based on the webcomic, I’ve decided to take a flyer by ordering some of their collections of past physical SL comics.

This is not the best of ideas.

Not that the FBI doesn’t deserve a flogging, too.

Enjoy.

I nominate this for post of the month in misc.legal.moderated:

I recently lost a friendly wager to my wife. If I’d won, she had to take my car for its next oil change. Not too bad, right? Unfortunately, I lost. Now, I’m supposed to go to a local convenience store wearing a French maid’s outfit, handcuffs and leg irons with a note offering me up to do some light cleaning. Basically, the idea is that I don’t get the keys to the cuffs unless I come home with a note from the clerk at the store telling my wife that I made good on the bet.

My wife is going to call the store first to make sure they don’t mind my coming in, so I’m not worried that management will complain that I’m causing a disturbance or anything like that. I’ll probably go late at night, when there are likely to be fewer customers anyway. As for the maid’s outfit my wife bought for this occasion — as embarrassing as it is, it isn’t in any way revealing, so I can’t imagine there’s anything illegal about wearing that in public. And I’m assuming there isn’t a legal problem with me wearing the cuffs.

But, put it all together and it’s likely to be a pretty strange sight. So, my concern is what happens if I’m at Sunoco or wherever my wife sends me and a police officer shows up just to get a cup of coffee or whatever. Would I be in violation of any laws that I may not be aware of? Or, in other words, do I need to be worried about being arrested simply because this is so far out of the ordinary?

Aside from the bizarreness, I wouldn’t want this guy doing any negotiations for me. Win and your wife has to take the car for an oil change, lose and you have to do that? Not particularly comparable outcomes.

An excellent set of posts from Megan McArdle, generally on abortion, are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Great disclaimer in the insurance that NAR (no typo) offers its members:

NAR insurance does not cover any activities which involve use of alcoholic beverages, criminal assaults and batteries, nuclear accidents, or sexual abuse.

In various Kelo discussions, defenders of the atrocity like to say things like “well, after Berman and Midkiff of course it would be decided that way. There was nothing wrong with Kelo and it didn’t change anything. The ‘public use’ clause of the 5th Amendment has been read as ‘public benefit’ or as ‘whatever the legislature deems to be a public use’ for decades.”

I think this is a good example of stare decisis for stare decisis’s case and the bad things it can lead to. All it takes is one not-so-great opinion some time ago (and if “public use” in 1787 meant “whatever the government determines to be public use”, why insert the phrase into the document in the first place?). Then you have another one upholding and expanding it. Rinse, lather, repeat, and eventually you become unmoored. I think it’s a great example of the types of danger Volokh has pointed out about the slippery slope. And of the dangers of not being originalist enough.

One of the most frustrating things in watching those excuses for elected officials grill Roberts (when they’re not burning up their time making incoherent speeches instead of asking questions) is the frightening number of times they want to pressure Roberts into saying that he’ll make decisions that lead to “correct” results instead making correct decisions.

It’s the job of a judge to follow the law as she is writ, even if that leads to results that everyone, even the judge, thinks are unfortunate at the time. To do otherwise is to render the law irrelevant. What’s the point of a constitution or statute books if judges are to ignore them whenever the judge things ignoring them leads to a “better” result?

From a comment over at Althouse’s blog. Snarky, but oh, so true. And these hearings are prima facie evidence for repealing the 17th Amendment.

Specter: Do you agree, as I do, that you will refuse to say anything meaningful about Roe V. Wade?

Roberts: I would just like to say, stare decisis, precedents, stare decisis and precendents, precendents and stare decisis, and in closing, Casey.

Leahy: Is the president EVIL or just evil? And why you hate sick children?

Roberts: Could you at least pretend to have paid attention to what I wrote? And just so we’re clear, every time I say “with all due respect…” what I really mean is “Could you be any more of a d*ckhead?”

Hatch: I’ve been in Congress a very long time and I know stuff.

Roberts: I believe judges should be thoughtful and pay attention to all issues under review.

Kennedy: We all know you hate black people so get it over with and say somethng insulting.

Roberts: Reagan was right, you were wrong, the Supreme Court agreed with us, get over it.

Grassley: I like flowers. Do you like flowers? I think flowers are pretty.

Roberts: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to bring the issue of precedents to the table. Also, sometimes the court has to decide hard cases and they should do so in a thoughtful manner. cough Precedents cough

Biden: I would like to use my time to read these overly clever questions my staff wrote for me: baseball, baseball, baseball, Ginsburg, Ginsburg, Ginsburg….and now my Sam Kinison impression, SAY IT SAY IT AH AH AH AHHHHH!!!!!!!

Roberts: Once again, the Supreme Court concluded that it was a correct reading of the law, so talk to the hand, analogy boy.