f/k/a . . .

10 PM bonus: from our Comment Section:

 

record heat

the ice cream man

adds a gallon to the radiator

 

                        Ed Markowski 

 

 

You don’t need me to provide you with legal commentary on today’s important

Supreme Court opinions.  There’s plenty at SCOTUSblog, of course, including

Ten Commandments discussion and Grokster discussion by weblog heavyweights.

 

“Commandments”  I do want to agree with Ann Althouse’s assessment:  the outcomes in the

two Ten Commandments cases make sense — as a matter of logic and of legal judgment. 

Like Justice Breyer (my Antitrust professor 30 years ago), I believe that judges very

often need to “judge” in constitutional law cases — they’re not merely answering True/

False questions (with brightline rules); they need to reason and explain with essays and 

even footnotes.

 

Prof. Althouse is also correct in noting that the results in these two cases are not really

all that important. (Similarly, I pointed out recently that icons are not what makes

religion important in our lives or our nation’s history.)   Ann asks for calm and tolerance:

Everyone needs to learn to get along, and those who want to purify   

things too much don’t impress me. Sure, they’ll be put out if the government

wins in these cases. I don’t think people who take great offense easily should

be driving the outcomes…. I think most atheists … and many religious people …

accept and even enjoy seeing evidence of other religions around them. It’s part

of art and history and culture — part of the beauty of the world that we live in

(either by the grace of God or by pure, weird chance).”   (via SCOTUSblog)

 

 Eugene Volokh reposts a piece discussing how many of the Ten Commandments    

are legally enforceable under modern American law.  Only three, with lots of

exceptions and ironies (do you know which ones?).  Prof. V asks “can you imagine

a law prohibiting coveting?”  In When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?, while

winnowing down the Ten Commandments to two (be honest and be loyal), George

Carlin notes (at 17): “THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S GOODS. This

one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor’s goods is what keeps the economy

going.”

• 
  
  
  

  Finally, I disagree with Prof. Bainbridge that “one might almost

  
  

  characterize these ultra-fine [religion clause] distinctions as 

  
  

  being Pharisaic.” “Pharisaic” means being “Hypocritically self-righteous  

  
  

  and condemnatory” or “marked by hypocritical censorious self-

  
  

  righteousness.”  Such descriptions seem to apply far more

  
  

  to “religionist” politicians, believers and webloggers, who

  
  

  want to force the public display of their religious icons on

  
  

  all Americans, despite the First Amendment, than to Court

  
  

  members who are trying to find a moderate test that should 

  
  

  be acceptable to all fair-minded Americans. 

afterthought (7PM):  To paraphrase Prof. B: “I hate it when Steve

corrects his mistakes.”  Prof. Bainbridge has changed “Pharisaic”

to “Scholastic.”  Like the Commentor BG,  I don’t think “scholastic”

fits well either.  However, as I have a hard enough time finding

apt adjectives for Prof. Yabut and my other weblog alter egoes, I’m

going to let Steve do his own thesaurus surfing — especially, since

I have no idea which meaning of scholastic is being suggested over

at ProfBillboard.com. 

 

Irving Hexam’s Concise Dictionary of Religion, gives the following

definition of Scholastic, which seems inapt to me when describing

today’s Court decisions:

  “SCHOLASTIC: derived from SCHOLASTICISM it 

became a term of abuse following the PROTESTANT

REFORMATION implying dead arguments based on

LOGIC unrelated to real life.”

 

“tinyredcheck”  The Justices of the Supreme Court are surely heading for summer

vacation getaways.  Prof. Chang is already on vacation, but Upstate

Dim Sum journal keeps working for us in his absence:

 

 

wildflowers

on both sides of the road

I miss the exit

 

 

 

 

waterfall

she pulls me

away from the edge

 

 

 

 

mountain lake –

basking

in your reflection

 

 

 

   Yu Chang - Upstate Dim Sum (2005/I)

 

 

 

• 
  
  by dagosan                                               

one bee and

a gardenful of roses –

on line at the ice cream truck

 

 

[June 27, 2005]

 

 

  dagosan is taking it kinda easy today, too, but Your Editor 

has culled out some of dagosan’s clunkers and compiled

david giacalone: haiku & senryu (2004), humbly offering the

collection for your perusal and enjoyment. 

  potluck

Jonathan B. Wilson at Point of Law informed us yesterday that

Georgia has legalized noodling.  We’re not presented with the definition of

noodling, but Wikipedia explains it is a mostly-Southern sport in which

one uses ones hands to catch catfish.    Being a Northerner and a lawyer,  I

would have tried using my noodle, and thereby put myself in even greater

physical jeopardy than the fellows who stick their hands and arms into catfish

holes as bait. 

• 
  
  Naturally, cool guys like George Wallace, Evan Schaeffer,
  
  
  Martin Grace, Ernest Svenson, and Steve Bainbridge, would
  
  
  think about musical improvisation, or the desultory way this
  
  
  weblog is written, when confronted with the term “noodling.”

 

in spring rain
chasing the elusive fish…
dog on the shore

 

the fish
unaware of the bucket…
a cool evening

 

heat shimmers–
in front of the noodle shop
a chopstick mountain

ISSA  translated by David G. Lanoue