Friday, March 26, 2010

OLD TEN COMMANDMENTS GOOD; NEW TEN COMMANDMENTS BAD. IF IT'S CLOSE, ASK JUSTICE BREYER: In conjunction with an upcoming symposium on technology and the law, the Connecticut Bar Foundation is sponsoring a contest for which nominal prizes will be awarded: summarize a favorite Supreme Court case in 140 characters or fewer on Twitter.

My submissions so far, all with the required #CBFtech hashtag, include:
  • Pleasant Grove City v Summum: Put up your wacky religious monument in your own damn park, freaks.
  • Marbury v Madison: Yes, you deserved your judicial commission, but we can't give it to you. Sorry!
  • DeShaney v. Winnebago: Dept. Social Services fails to protect 4-yo from violently abusive dad? Tough shit, Joshua.
at

28 comments:

  1. kevbo nobo7:19 AM

    United States v. Carolene Products Company: Little acorn becaomes the oak.

    ReplyDelete
  2. bill.8:07 AM

    I'll give it a shot...

    Kelo v. City of New London: All your base are belong to us

    Miller v. United States: paraphrasing Nuke Laloosh, if you bring the heater, then anounce your presence with authority.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shani9:07 AM

    Adam, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum is made of win! I have been laughing all morning.

    ReplyDelete
  4. bad dad9:59 AM

    Griswold v. Connecticut: Whole lotta privacy hanging on so little law. Penumbras and eminations? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  5. bad dad10:07 AM

    Citizens United v. FEC - If we knew we'd be facing Obama, not Hilary, in 2007, we'd have been National Independence Group...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Adlai11:49 AM

    Cooper v. Aaron: Suck it, Faubus.

    ReplyDelete
  7. isaac_spaceman12:03 PM

    Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife:  We don't care that you care.  Bleed first, then we'll talk. 

    ReplyDelete
  8. MidwestAndrew12:49 PM

    Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: We'll teach you the basics of journalism in school, just not freedom of press until you graduate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Adam1:12 PM

    My additions to the tweeting:

    <span><span>Safford United Sch Dist v Redding: school can't strip-search a student for Advil ... again. We'll give you a pass on the 1st one</span></span>

    <span>Crawford v Marion County Election Bd: Requiring voter IDs is okay because of that one time Boss Tweed committed fraud</span>

    <span><span>Kimbrough v US: Crack is Wack, but not as wack as Congress said it was. Judges can show mercy in sentencing.</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  10. Andrew1:19 PM

    FCC v Pacifica Foundation: "Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, Tits." No, you can't say all of those on TV or radio. 

    ReplyDelete
  11. Adam C.1:24 PM

    Alexander v. Sandoval: license bureau screws up Title VI disparate impact private right of action for all. Thankyoudrivethruplease.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jenn.2:08 PM

    Dickerson v. US:  How Law & Order + stare decisis saved Miranda v Arizona

    ReplyDelete
  13. isaac_spaceman2:46 PM

    Plessy v. Ferguson:  Separate is okay if equal.  Great Dissenter:  it never is, but we all hate Chinamen. 

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Pathetic Earthling5:05 PM

    S/V The Battle: You built a ship for the Confederacy.  You don't get paid.  STFU.

    Witters v. WA Dept Service for the Blind: He's blind.  Don't be an asshole about it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Pathetic Earthling5:07 PM

    (I should note that "S/V The Battle" could probably be tweeted in its entirety.  Years ago I found at a book store at Lincoln Inn, the Complete Prize Cases of the US Supreme Court for about 50 quid).

    ReplyDelete
  16. isaac_spaceman5:59 PM

    Dredd Scott:  Slavery problem solved, national unity rescued, by a vote of 1.5-1.5-1-1-1-gibberish-2. 

    ReplyDelete
  17. Adlai6:18 PM

    The Slaughterhouse Cases: point of 14th A? not to help butchers.
    Lochner v. NY: point of 14th A? to protect bakers.
    Muller v. Oregon: Fine, we'll let states protect the ladies.
    West Coast Hotel: Regulate away. We're done.

    Holmes's dissent in Lochner: why lawyers know who Herbert Spencer is.

    Romer v. Evans: Have you people read the equal protection clause?

    Dennis v. US: Shut up, Communists.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Adlai6:26 PM

    Loving v. Virginia: Virginia is for _all_  lovers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Adlai6:38 PM

    US v. Lopez: Why so surprised? 

    Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US: Don't blame the 4 horsemen. All 9 of us hate your statute.

    Man, I could do this all day.

    ReplyDelete
  20. bill.6:52 PM

    <span><span>Talbot v. Seeman: Finders keepers, losers weepers</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  21. spacewoman7:45 PM

    Laughing so hard.

    Also liked "Tough shit, Joshua."

    ReplyDelete
  22. spacewoman7:46 PM

    more, more!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Adlai8:19 PM

    Bowers v. Hardwick: You can do anything for love, but you can't do that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Russ10:16 PM

    Basically the same tweet for Bakke...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Genevieve11:20 PM

    Yes, keep going!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ella11:22 PM

    BMW v. Gore:  Ah, rich doctor with your fancy car - sorry, the Constitution limits your paint-job windfall.

    Morse v. Frederick (aka Bong Hits 4 Jesus):  Most high school students are highly impressionable idiots.

    Lemon v. Kurtzman:  Establishment of religion? I know it when I see it. --SOC

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ella9:31 AM

    Booker/Fanfan - Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Benner11:44 AM

    Meyer v. Nebraska:  Sprechen sie Deutsch?  Ja.

    Bush v. Gore:  Bush 5, Gore 4.

    Wickard v. Filburn:  You're gonna reap what you sow, under federal law.

    City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey:  New Jersey's shit does, in fact, stink.

    Skinner v. Oklahoma:  Three generations of imbeciles are insufficient.

    ReplyDelete