Blog

The link to the segment is here. I’ll be on at 3:00 EST. I’ll be on with host Abby Huntsman, and Reason Editor Jacob Sallum, among others.

Here is the video.

In Paul Clement’s application to SCOTUS in an NLRB case, he uses the word “cert-worthy.”

This case not only presents three related but independently cert-worthy questions, such that there is an unusually strong likelihood that this Court would review should the Court of Appeals affirm, but also involves particularly strong equities that make the risk of irreparable injury absent a stay concrete and acute

I checked the Westlaw database for cert petitions: there are 455 hits for “certworthy” and 624 hits for “cert-worthy.”

I guess “cert-worthy” is more accepted, but not by much. I’m inclined to go with whatever Paul Clement thinks.

Of course, the phrase “cert-worthy” reminds me of the Seinfeld episode with “sponge-worthy.”

Justice Ginsburg gave an interview about Opera on WQXR, and she touched on the death penalty.

RBG: Every time I have to participate in a case where someone has been sentenced to death, I feel that same conflict. When you are with a group of nine people, the highest court in the land, you can’t pretend to be king or queen. If I had may way, there would be no death penalty. But the death penalty for now, is the law. But I can say, I won’t participate in those cases, then I would not be an influence.Q: But it’s not the law in every state:

RBG: No, but it is the law in most states. Well over half states.

Q: I don’t want to get too involved in this. How does this translate to the highest Court?

RBG: There is a question about the fairness of the trial. Maybe the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Maybe the defendant was not mentally competent. These are the issues that come to us.

Interestingly, RBG would not take the approach that Justices Brennan and Marshall did–that the death penalty was always unconstitutional. Yet, their position became marginalized because they perpetually dissented.

RBG also spoke to her true career ambititions–being a “Diva.” RBG is asked when she knew she had a talent for law, and what she wanted to be.

RBG: My first answer is not a great lawyer. It is, I would be a great diva. But I totally lacked that talent, so the next best thing is the law.

I think we would all agree that Justice Ginsburg is the finest diva at One First Street.

RBG also touches on Wagner’s music, which she said is “associated with the Third Reich.”

Her interviews comes on around 5:45.

H/T How Appealing

Adam Liptak has a great Sidebar column exploring whether the Solicitor General will file a brief in the Prop 8 case, where the Federal Government is not a party. Last week, I attended an event on the Supreme Court term at Georgetown Law Center. Adam (no doubt with this column in mind) asked the all-star panel if the SG would file a brief. Former Acting SG Neal Katyal said that the government only decides if it will file a brief at the last minute–suggesting that one may be written, but never submitted.

Paul Clement quipped that when he was in the SG’s Office, Ted Olson was in charge, and the government decided not to file a brief–presumably the brief would have been against gay rights.

Nor did it weigh in on the last major gay rights case, Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 struck down state laws making gay sex a crime.

The solicitor general in 2003 was Theodore B. Olson. He is now in private practice and is one of the lawyers challenging the California ban on same-sex marriage. On Jan. 18, he and his colleague David Boies, along with lawyers from the San Francisco city attorney’s office, met with Mr. Verrilli to urge him to take a stand in the California case. Defenders of Proposition 8 made the opposite pitch a few days later.

Mr. Verrilli was noncommittal, but there is now reason to think that Mr. Olson will prevail in persuading Mr. Verrilli to ignore the precedent Mr. Olson had set. That is largely because Mr. Obama’s thinking on same-sex marriage continues to evolve

Oh how times change.

You may recall that Bill Maher said he would donate $5 million Donald Trump’s preferred charity if he could prove he is not “spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan.” Trump, of course, retained a lawyer, provided a copy of his birth certificate, and threatened to sue unless Maher paid up.

Here is the letter Trump’s attorney sent Maher:

Dear Mr. Maher:

I represent Mr. Donald J. Trump.  I write on his behalf to accept your offer (made during the Jay Leno Show on January 7, 2013) that Mr. Trump prove he is not the “spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan.”

Attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Trump’s birth certificate, demonstrating that he is the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan. Please remit the $5 million to Mr. Trump immediately and he will ensure that the money be donated to the following five charities in equal amounts: Hurricane Sandy Victims, The Police Athletic League, The American Cancer Society, The March of Dimes, and The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Regards,

Scott S. Balber

Later trump postured to sue:

 “He made an absolute offer. I made an absolute acceptance. I showed him documentation, and he owes me $5 million, which I’m going to give to charities,” Trump said. “Let’s see what happens, and if he doesn’t give me the money, we’ll probably sue him.”

Contracts professors rejoice, you now have another case to teach other than Leonard v. Pepsico to illustrate reasonableness of offers.

The Donald is suing! This morning on Fox News he announced “breaking news” that he is in fact suing.

“[Maher] made me an offer. I accepted the offer immediately, and he didn’t come through with the $5 million,” Trump said on Fox News.

But wasn’t Maher joking? He was a comedian on the Tonight Show?

“I don’t think he was joking. He said it with venom. That was venom. That wasn’t a joke. In fact, he was nervous when he said it. It was a pathetic delivery,”

What a pathetic waste of public resources for a court to entertain this suit. Maybe at least Trump can be sanctioned?

 

 

H/t Althouse