mancalablog

posts to days old
of topics
with text
post

supreme

m (13 Jul 2005 17:49): Rehnquist: cheeky! In response to reporters' questions the other day about his presumed imminent retirement, said "That's for me to know and you to find out."
That spry old justice!
(19 Jul 2005 16:24): House of Pain
PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER

Hear me and hear me good, Scalia, you SNAKE, you high-court LOWLIFE, you black-robed, black-hearted COWARD. For years, your manager and mentor, Ronald Reagan, told you LIES, PACKS of lies, NOTHING BUT LIES. LIES about what America stands for. About what's good for America. About the American people. And those lies are why you think like you do. Which is a problem ... FOR YOU! Because I'm COMING AFTER YOU, you maggoty magistrate. RRRRRRRRR! I'm coming to UNLEASH my rabid fury on your restrictive originalist interpretations of the Constitution. To PILE-DRIVE your musclebound attempts to undermine the separation of church and state into the canvas. To SMACKDOWN your [expletive] opinions on affirmative action with some affirmative ass-kicking action. And something else, Judge Mental Case: Tell your tag-team partner, your STOOGE, Clarence Thomas, he's goin' down, too. OH, YEAAAAAH! Believe me, I'm gonna clock that adjudicating jackass so bad, he's gonna wake up thinkin' he's BLACK.
g (19 Jul 2005 16:25): For the record, it came out fine in the 'preview.' Seriously.
m (11 Nov 2005 20:06): I shit you not. anagram. Credit to Hertzberg in the New Yorker:

Samuel Alito
I am a sellout
m (14 Jan 2006 10:20): depressing.
Paul (19 Apr 2007 19:33): The more I read quotes of Kennedy's opinion, the more bizarre it sounds...it really reads like Alice in Wonderland. So, does Kennedy really believe his own opinion, or is he just giving us a scare so we know the stakes of the '08 election?
Paul (25 Jun 2007 9:33): Dammit. It looks like we're just going to have a giant parade of evil decisions until Scalia or Kennedy leave, which may not be for quite some time.
m (25 Jun 2007 17:08): Wait, SCOTUSblog? Who runs scotusblog? The justices don't need a blog. They get to comment all they want in their opinions. Maybe clerks could post candid photos of the justices in their off time (nsfw).
m (24 Jun 2013 7:47): Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dreamy (her lone dissent starts p38)