March 12, 2006

Audible Althouse #40.

A new episode.

Fretting about:
being too Spring-Break mellow to podcast

having strangers look at my house

the word "ogle"
Analyzing:
the Oscars and the politics surrounding them

the Supreme Court's opinion in the Solomon Amendment case and what it means about the law professors who came out on the losing end of it
Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, why don't you? But you know you can live-stream it right on your computer right here.

6 comments:

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Bada bing.

When you struggled with obfuscatory, I kept wanting to say, "God bless you."

Wade_Garrett said...

I must have missed the original post on this, but as for John Roberts' comment about the rule of law being like a cathedral . . . what would your reaction have been if he used "baseball stadium" instead of "cathedral?" :-)

Goesh said...

- or a meat packing plant

Dale B said...

Re: Solomon Amendment case

I still don't understand why you think bringing this case to the Supreme Court was a good thing to do. It seems that there are several reasons to take a case this far.

1) You think that a law is unconstitutional and you want it overturned.

2) The law is unclear or contradictory on some point and you want clarification.

3) You're just grabbing at straws and hope that maybe you'll luck out and receive a favorable decision.

4) You want to send a message or make political points.

I suppose that a particular case could have some aspects of some or all of the above.

Given that the decision was so one sided, it seems that someone knowledgeable in this area, like a bunch of law profs, would be able to predict the decision with certainty. That seems to preclude 1) and 2) as reasons to pursue this case. I would think that 3) is probably out as well although there have been cases that everyone thought were a certain to go a particular way and pretty much everyone was surprised at the decision.

That leaves 4). I get the impression that this is the essence of your position. I suppose this is justifiable if you're in the right frame of mind. Maybe I'm just politically naive but I've always thought that you only send a message when you can't do anything useful.

In my world, if I think that I have no possibility of success in an endevor, I will not waste any further time or effort. Why bother? Maybe that's just me. I'm just a grunt engineer. I don't get paid by the hour, I get paid by the job. More specifically, I get paid to succeed. Spending time and money on a design that has no possibility of working is good way to become unemployed.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just want to understand.

Ann Althouse said...

Dale: You shouldn't assume that every unanimous opinion is predictable from the start. How was it possible to have won in the Court of Appeals? I agree that if the outcome was certain, it would be wrong to bring the case.

Dale B said...

Thanks for the reply Ann. I guess the lesson for me is that there is no sure thing in the law. You never quit until there are no options left (or you go broke).