I would appreciate everyone’s prayers and positive thoughts for my grandma. Last week we found out she likely has cancer (again), and today it appears she had a stroke. She’s not doing very well. I could use some good vibes too, as I try to figure out the logistics of getting to California.

Blogging might be sparse for a little while – I’ll try to keep you all posted. Thanks, in advance.

I just updated my oral argument post with illustrations, provided courtesy of Arfcommer mcouey.

I kinda want to make the motorboating frame my avatar on everything for the rest of the internet.

I wrote this earlier and was encouraged to post it here. Oh well, I’m not running for POTUS anyway.

Warning: Language and irreverence ahead. (Seriously, Grandma, I live with a Marine!)

—————–

GURA: Scalia! An argument for incorporating under privileges and immunities, YOU CAN HAS! 
SCALIA: WTF are you talking about? We can incorporate it under due process. I hate due process and I even think that. 
GURA: Uhhh
SCALIA: Are you trying to get a job at a law school? 
GURA: Oh shit
SCALIA: SERIOUSLY STFU IF WE USE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THESE FUCKOS WILL LEGITIMIZE EVERYTHING STFU STFU STFU 
GURA: But you hate due process
SCALIA: I LIKE IT NOW
GURA: Uhhh
GINSBURG: I’m a bitch!
SCALIA: LULZ 
STEVENS: I’m a bitch! 
CLEMENT: This should obviously be incorporated under due process.
ALITO: Werd 
BREYER: *motorboats Sotomayor*
FELDMAN: Here’s my first argument.
SCALIA: That argument sucks.
FELDMAN: Ordered liberty?
SCALIA: We haven’t used that since 1937.
FELDMAN: Have too.
SCALIA: When? 
FELDMAN: Uh, here’s my second argument.
SCALIA: You just argued against your first argument.
FELDMAN: Did not.
SCALIA: Did so. 
FELDMAN: DID NOT!
SCALIA: …
FELDMAN: *cries*
SCALIA: …
ROBERTS: You just argued the losing Heller argument.
FELDMAN: *pees pants*
BREYER: Let’s make a chart. 
ROBERTS: Madison made a chart!
BREYER: STFU
THOMAS: *reads the Bible* 
SCALIA: The 2A puts the fun in fundamental. 
FELDMAN: Let me tell you what Heller says.
SCALIA: I wrote Heller, fucknuts. 
KENNEDY: So if we’re going to just incorporate the militia purpose of Heller, what case do we use for precedent? 
FELDMAN: No fucking idea. 
SCALIA: Why are you talking about the right to self-defense? That’s not in the Constitution. 
FELDMAN: See above. Besides, nobody would really restrict the right to keep and bear arms so that it affected self-defense. 
SCALIA: Have you even read Heller? 
FELDMAN: I don’t think so. 
KENNEDY: Gura, let’s use your last three minutes to talk about everything but the 2A.
ROBERTS: I’m going to give you the chance to take back that privileges and immunities thing. 
GURA: No, we think it’s a good idea!
ROBERTS: *sigh*

—————–

P.S. I want to give a shout-out to Gura, who I didn’t really give proper credit in the summary. I do think he did a good job, I just think he was a little taken aback by Scalia coming out swinging on privileges/immunities – as was I.

To be perfectly honest, I lost a little bit of Scalia love today. I can’t get behind the idea that, if something’s bad, just because it’s been bad for 140 years we should perpetuate it.

EDIT: Um, er, yeah… one of the hits I got on this is from a forum poster who apparently knows Justice Scalia and promised to forward it. 0_0 The good news is they think he’ll get a kick out of it. I feel obligated to point out, just in case, that I’m married to a 1L who happens to be a HUGE Scalia fan and would gladly take a shoe-shining or trash-emptying internship.

Just in case.

EDIT: mcouey over on Arfcom took this and ran with it… Here’s the result, which had me rolling:

There were many excellent quotes, usually courtesy of Scalia, but this emerged as one of my favorites:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Is that what you are asserting here, that the States have to allow firearms?
MR. FELDMAN: No.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Is that –
MR. FELDMAN: I — I didn’t think I was.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I didn’t think so, either, so why did your last argument make any sense?

The transcript of the oral arguments is up:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

Finally saw it last night.

Meh. I was less-than-impressed. By a lot.

I’d also like someone(s) who has seen it to explain something to me. It’s not really spoilery, since it’s kinda the theme of all of the movies:

Is there a legitimate time-travel-theory explanation for how John Connor could have existed to send Kyle Reese back to impregnate his mother? I think of time linearly (failure of imagination, I know) so I conceptualize it such that the first time history played through, John wouldn’t have existed, because he didn’t exist in the future to send Kyle back. And since he didn’t come to exist, he wouldn’t have been able to send Kyle back, so he never would have existed.

So. If this makes sense in time-travel theory, someone explain it, because I don’t have enough nerd cred to get it.

If it doesn’t make sense, then I guess I just suck at suspension of disbelief.

Oh, and two more questions/annoyances that are spoilery:

- If they’d figured out a signal that would deactivate machines, why the hell weren’t they playing that thing everywhere they went?

- When they destroyed Skynet HQ at the end, if that was an actual nuclear explosion, wouldn’t there have been an associated EMP that would have killed their chopper?

Oh, and it also took me until 2010 to realize John Connor = J.C. Gee, can you think of any other savior-types with those initials?

I already wasn’t going to be doing any foreign travel, because my child doesn’t have a social security number and is thus ineligible for a passport.

Now, it looks like I won’t be traveling anywhere by air, ever.

I have put up with a lot of the post-9/11 security theater. I’ve thrown away my lipgloss, been wanded, taken off my shoes, put all my liquids and gels into an appropriate little baggie. I have allowed them to pick away at my privacy and dignity, bit by bit, with full knowledge it’s all a meaningless circus meant to give the sheep the illusion of security.

No more.

I’m a citizen of the United States and the state of Idaho, and I will not be subjected to this bullshit. Period.

I just introduced a friend of mine to the magic of RSS. He was asking where I get my news, and how I make time to be (relatively) politically informed.

We don’t have TV. I have my homepage set to news.google.com, so I glance at that a few times per internet session (like every time I open a new tab). I also hit up SaysUncle for the high (and low) points of the politics I care most about.

I have a ton of other worthy blogs in my reader, but if I’m taking a bare-bones look at where to get the news, those are my top two choices.

Where do you get your news?

Wild Deuce, in the comments:

As long as a party can always count on your vote, they will NEVER be obligated to listen to or respect your wishes.

Continuing to vote for Republicans simply because they are not Democrats, is like the battered wife choosing her abusive husband over the rapist because the husband at least says, “I love you.” There are other options.

Palin: Tea Partiers “Have to Pick a Party” – CBS News

“Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” Palin said. “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.”

I wanted so badly to like her, for her to be what I wanted her to be, and I think that makes her even more intolerable to me at this point.