I'm so Kafka-esque

The primary advantage of studying law, as one writer put it, “was that it allowed him to delay for a little longer any real decision about what to do, while at the same time ostensibly satisfying his father’s demand that a course of study lead to a source of income.” Remarking upon Kafka’s ambivalence, Max Brod stated, “[l]aw he took up with a sigh because it was the school that involved the least fixed goal, or the [largest] choice of goals ... the school that put off longest taking a decision. . .” Kafka wrote of his own apathy that, “everything would be exactly as much of a matter of indifference to me as all the subjects taught at school, and so it was a matter of finding a profession that would be most likely to allow me to indulge this indifference without overmuch injuring my vanity. So law was the obvious choice.”

Sounds vaguely familiar (except for the father part).

Yes, I'm taking law and literature. And yes, I love it.

Good Times in Public Defense

Favorite quotes from today's research:

The government's evidence showed that on September 9, 1980, Brooks and three companions, Gilliam, Edmunson, and Mackenheimer engaged in an early morning indulgence in drugs and sex. - Brooks v. U.S., 536 A.2d 1091, 1092 (D.C.
1988)*

Sure beats early morning research.

Not really if you read the rest of the case, though.

Fourth, Butler argues that the trial court's exclusion of his explanation of why he struck Queen (namely, because Queen opened his eyes after being ordered to keep them shut) distorted his admission that he struck Queen because it left the jury with the impression that he was the sort of person who would attack someone else without reason. - Butler v. U.S., 614 A.2d 875, 883
(D.C. 1992)

Phew. Glad we cleared that one up.

And finally,

A party may not attempt to manufacture evidence by creating an impression in the minds of the jurors through questions that imply the existence of facts.
- Ali v. U.S., 520 A.2d 306, 313 (D.C. 1987).

Hmm...Clearly forgotten by the judge during yesterday's closing statements.

*Anyone who comments on my citations will get hit.

Do I really want to be a part of this industry?

The passengers from Flight 1549 (that landed in the Hudson) are looking into suing.

I get that sometimes there are legitimate reasons to sue - obviously there are. But I feel like my brain is being bombarded with examples of our overly-litigious society.

Some of the cases are even things that I really care about, but I feel disgusted by the knee jerk response, always looking for someone to sue when anything bad happens.

Other people say it better

There's been a lot of discussion lately about Prop 8 and role of African American voters. It's been a major topic of blogging and conversation at my school and among my blogger friends and around lunch tables and over gchat. Mostly my friends are white and while we think of ourselves as liberal and accepting, there's admittedly been a certain perspective lacking.

If you're hoping that I am now going to start a reasoned discourse on this topic, you're about to be disappointed. I'm not. You might have noticed from my recent posts that being reasonable is not my strong suit right now. I'm on the edge.

But I read a post today about this whole issue that I found to be incredibly reasoned, and so for those who are looking for something like that, I'm pointing you to it.

A teaser:

In order to address homophobia in the black community, we have to be able to acknowledge that it exists without people of color and "allied" white liberals knee-jerk calling anyone who does so a "racist." Calling each other names and then angrily retreating back to our own segregated little corners of the world because some things are too "taboo" to acknowledge won't get us anywhere near addressing this. White LGBT people need to acknowledge white privilege and call people out for making asinine, racist comments on the internet and in the public sphere. Just because you are gay it doesn't give you a free pass to be racist or sexist.

These discussions are too important for that kind of stunted knee-jerk type of thinking.

Not only does homophobia contribute to the escalating rates of HIV/AIDS in the black community, but the denial of marriage rights for gay men and lesbians is unfair discrimination, inequality, and intolerance that stamps gay people with a badge of inferiority.

I anticipate realizing Obama's promise of hope and change for all Americans. I celebrate what his victory means for our nation and to African-Americans. As one commenter here said a few days ago, it's a great time to have a black Democrat in the White House. Now, we have work to do. We are all harmed when the rights of some of us are taken away or denied. Even though the injustices we face are different, I remain in solidarity with all people who face true injustice.

Sex, Poop, and Voting

I voted. For Obama.

It felt good.

Then I got a free cup of coffee.

And then...

I met Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

She was pretty much exactly like I expected her to be - smart and gracious and busy. I'll steal a bit from the babe's analysis of the meeting and say that aside from not having a discussion involving an in-depth analysis of all of her decisions and what it felt like to be the only woman on the Supreme Court, it was great! :) Of course, that wasn't a possibility, but we got good pictures, and she got us seats to watch the argument that was starting.

And my friends, we could not have chosen a better day to sit in on an argument. We watched FCC v. Fox, in which Fox was arguing against sanctions for single instances of expletive use and the FCC was arguing for the ability to sanction single instances.

It was fabulous!

All of these words/phrases showed up in the hour (some repeatedly):

"Nicole Richie"

"Paris Hilton"

"Cher"

"bawdy jokes"

"the s-word"

"Big Bird dropping the s-bomb"

"Would the word 'dung' be allowed?"

"the f-word"

"sexual and/or excretory"

"What if it's a really funny use of an expletive?"

Seriously - I'm not sure I could've asked for anything better.

Except maybe if someone had mentioned boob grabbing.

What would Sandra Day think?

Because I am an incredibly blessed and lucky person, I have an appointment set up to meet Justice O'Connor next week and have her take me on a tour of the Supreme Court. The babe is coming along.

Though I haven't broadcast this information widely, those friends that know are super jealous.

In fact, two of my dear friends have offered to engage in romantic relationships with me in exchange for an invitation to join me in meeting O'Connor.

J said to me today, "I'll be your girlfriend too. I won't have sex with you because, well, I don't do that. But I'll cuddle. I'm good at cuddling. I'll let you touch my boob."

That's right. She offered a boob grab in exchange for meeting Justice O'Connor.

Unfortunately for J, I'm deeply devoted to the babe and keep all of my boob grabbing for her.

But, being the kind and giving person that I am, I wanted to put this information out there for any of you hoping to hook up with a lady. Supreme Court Justices are the way to go. Pick a Supreme Court Justice and set up a meeting! That lady will be offering all sorts of things in exchange for the opportunity to tag along.

I demand to be heard!!

I visited Muir Woods in California today - obviously a stunningly beautiful place. But the most interesting part of the visit was a sign designating a particular area as a place to exercise first amendment rights, which is nice I suppose. Good to get a reminder of that delightful little amendment. But it begs the question - don't we get to exercise our first amendment rights on all public property? Or is Muir Woods not public property? Also, has the been some sort of issue where people really needed to exercise their first amendment rights outside of Muir Woods? It's not a really traversed area. I'm trying to remember property law and those cases about malls and first amendment rights, but it's late, and I'm in a different time zone. So I'm just going to leave the questions out there.