Some interesting things I found online today.

This is pretty cool. When you watch it, because I know you’ll check it out, make it be full screen so you can get the whole effect. For those of you who don’t know this about me, I think sheep dogs are pretty amazing. And I have to give credit to Lesley because she told me about this, but I found the link myself. 🙂

Another interesting thing I found online today is this There’s a video that goes with it too, but I just read the article. It’s an article about congressman Frank making a comment about Justice Scalia being homophobic. Now for all you who aren’t law students and don’t read U.S. Supreme Court opinions in your spare time just because they’re just so much fun, here’s a brief bio on Justice Scalia. He’s been on the U.S. Supreme Court since 1986, is very socially and politically conservative, and is a strict textualist when it comes to statutory and constitutional interpretation. (here’s a link to a bio if you’re dying to know more I, personally, don’t agree with his politics, hate reading his self-important ridiculously long opinions, and think its a little disingenuous to purport to read the constitution and answer constitutional law questions based on what would have happened over 200 years ago. But what do I know? I got B’s in constitutional law and he’s a Supreme Court justice.

Anyway, the point of this is the cnn link. Apparently this guy, Congressman Frank, called Justice Scalia a homophobe and said he hoped the constitutionality of DOMA (that’s the Defense of Marriage Act) didn’t go to the Supreme Court because he was afraid that Justice Scalia would be able to persuade the rest of the court that it was a constitutional law. Regardless of what I think about DOMA (which I will talk about in a minute), I don’t think that Congressman Frank’s concern is legitimate. He mostly based his fear on Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (a case that held Texas’s law against sodomy to be unconstitutional). Granted, Scalia’s dissent was looooonnnnggg and slightly offensive, but it was also the lone dissent. The makeup of the court has changed since that case, but I don’t think Scalia’s ability to influence the court has changed that much.

Now the problem I have with DOMA is that it basically says that states do not have to recognize marriages that are against that state’s public policy even if the marriage is valid in the state it was performed. There’s two issues I have with that. First, the general rule for recognizing marriages is that a marriage is valid everywhere if its valid where it was performed. Second, what about the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution? Or the Privileges and Immunities Clause? (Here’s a link to the text in case you haven’t committed these clauses to memory yet These two clauses are basically what makes the federal system work. They say (1) that all states have to recognize the laws and enforce judgments of other states and that (2) one state can’t discriminate against or deny rights to citizens of other states. Isn’t that exactly what DOMA does?

So here’s the bottom line. My opinion on the whole Congressman-Frank-calls-Justice-Scalia-a-homophobe debacle. It might be true, I don’t know Scalia personally, so I don’t know, but why start name-calling? Nothing good will come from that. And besides that, as much as I strongly dislike Scalia (because of his super-long opinions that basically provide dictionary definitions for every word of a statute or provision), the man has been on the U.S. Supreme Court for over 20 years. And he’s been a lawyer for longer. I think, by now, he’s learned to separate his personal feelings from the issue at bar (oh, and the basis for his dissent in Lawerence v. Texas was what he perceived as judicial activism, taking away state’s rights, and legislative power, not homophobia). Come on, Frank, give the guy some credit.

I just want to say, if there is any chance, that Justice Scalia stumbles upon this obscure blog somehow… Please. Please. Please. Stop writing an opinion in every. single. case. Please. And, if it’s not too much trouble, can you try to limit them to 10 pages or so? I’m not sure if you realize this, but we read those in law school. And I’m sure you remember what a joyous three years that was.

If you endured this much of the first law-related blog I’ve written, bless you. You’re probably wondering why I used the word “interesting” to describe that link… Well here’s the answer: According to, interesting means “holding the attention or arousing interest.” And, probably the real reason it was “interesting”: I’m a big dork.

Anyway, here’s your reward for sticking with me: The best thing I found online today, I actually laughed when I saw this.
fail owned pwned pictures
see more pwn and owned pictures

In case you not a avid reader, this is a playground fail.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s