Shall Not Be Infringed

The last letter to the editor printed in each issue of the The Economist typically always has a witty tone, and in the latest edition, Californian Skip Kilmartin's letter made me chuckle.

SIR – Lexington accurately noted how Michelle Obama could employ her intelligence, energy and family history as a spokesperson for American values and to inspire us to work together as a society (March 21st). Lexington also mentioned that the White House has engaged in a debate with the media about whether Mrs Obama should show her “perfectly toned” upper limbs in public.

Being familiar with constitutional law, perhaps Barack Obama could put this particular fashion controversy surrounding his wife to rest by referring to the second amendment’s right to bare arms.

Hyhooooo!

Middle Finger Salute Protected by the Consitution

Flashing a middle finger against a police officer is constitutionally protected.

A federal court judge decided the citation issued was not for blocking traffic as the city contended, but in retaliation for Hackbart's rude salute.

Judge David Cercone found the police response was a violation of Hackbart's free speech rights under the First Amendment and a violation of his right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

USA! USA! USA!

I highly recommend you NOT test the application of this ruling in New York City against the NYPD unless you want to get uncomfortably close to either a plunger or a walkie-talkie antenna.

[Via]

Law School Gangsta: Fed Rules of Civil Procedure Rap

Law student (Notorious B.O.A.L.T?) at UC Berkeley Law raps about CivPro (Language NSFW). [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBTba2J6OKI]

This part made me laugh:

Your girl is an 8a, short and plain But that bitch is a ten when she’s giving me brain She bolted out of ASP, demanding relief But first I made her taste my jurisdictional reach

[Via]

Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Understand the First Amendment

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCSaF4KC3eE] It's so irresponsible of a "journalist," especially one so prominent as Bill O'Reilly to refuse to understand the basic fundamental principles of the First Amendment. It's shockingly ignorant, even by his low standards, that he doesn't get why websites like Gawker and others cannot be prosecuted for publishing the hacked Sarah Palin e-mails. I'm not sure which bothers me more: His apparent lack of intellect or his perverse interest in loofahs.

[Via]

HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A LAWYER SCORNED

Apparently Paul Hastings, an elite corporate law firm, has been quietly firing many of its lawyers, associates and partners (via "deequitization"). One former Paul Hastings attorney Shinyung Oh decided to not go quietly into that good severance package night. Instead she sent out a company wide email with the termination agreement ("Transition Agreement and General Release") attached which she rejected, and described the circumstances surrounding her "departure" from the firm just six days after her miscarriage.

After my miscarriage, I had discussed my concern with several associates that Paul Hastings may use that opportunity to lay me off quickly before I have a chance to get pregnant again. Those associates thought it unfathomable that a firm would be so callous and assured me that Paul Hastings isn't that kind of a place. What a lesson this has been for them - and for me. I would not have anticipated that a partner would tell me one thing and completely renege on his words a week later. I would not have anticipated that a female partner (whom I had looked to as a role model) with children of her own would sit stone faced as I broke into tears just days after my miscarriage. Even a few words of sympathy or concern would have made a world of difference. What kind of people squander human relationships so easily?

Paul Hastings was recognized this year by The American Lawyer "one of the top labor and employment firms in its Litigation Department of the Year competition."

[Thanks Lauren]

PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

According to Law Professor John Duffy thousands of patent decisions handed down over the past eight years may be invalid. Wow.

His basic point does not appear to be in dispute. Since 2000, patent judges have been appointed by a government official without the constitutional power to do so. ...[The] Justice Department has already all but conceded that Professor Duffy is right. Given the opportunity to dispute him in a December appeals court filing, government lawyers said only that they were at work on a legislative solution.

Read rest here.

[Thanks Paul!]

Update: I just noticed that the WSJ law blog and I have identical headlines for this story.  Blah.  And me thought so clever.  Me wrong.