Supreme Court Justice Kagan uses Dr. Seuss in case argument

The Washington Times ^ | 02/25/2015 | By Phillip Swarts

[Durus]

The rural people were protected by the legions. Sure their tax burden was removed by the fall of the empire (which, all told, was a lesser burden than it is today) but they then had to face rapacious barbarians who took everything they owned and in many cases their lives as well.

[momtothree]

EXCELLENT!

[left that other site]

And I didn’t even go to Law School! LOL!

[Impy]

I don’t know where the court’s decision was legally correct or not, but the prosecution of the fisherman was ridiculous.

[mlo]

Oh stop. Might as well criticize her for breathing. She “cited” Dr. Suess to the undisputed point that a fish is a real object. It’s called a joke.

When we criticize people for every little thing it just dilutes meaningful criticism.

[mlo]

"Yep. In a sane world, virtually all SCOTUS decisions would be unanimous."

Strangely enough, most are.

"What was surprising was how often they agreed to agree. Two-thirds of the 72 cases fully decided this term were unanimous, the highest percentage in years. Most were low-profile disputes, but did include:"

http://wtvr.com/2014/07/01/supreme-court-had-highest-percentage-of-unanimous-decisions-this-session/

[Impy]

By “where” I meant “whether”.

[Kenny Bunk]

Kagan has never set foot as an attorney of record into a trial courtroom in the United States, not even a small claims justice court; nor for that matter, any appellate court save for the literally handful of spoon fed cases she suddenly worked on as Solicitor General. Kagan has never been a judge in any courtroom, of any court, in the United States.

It's possible Dr. Seuss is an authority figure to this "legal professional." About right for Team Obama.

[SeaHawkFan]

First of all, SOX should not apply to a situation like this; it’s absurd.

Second, it should be a civil matter, not a criminal one.

This is a case where Thomas and Scalia got off track from their usual contextual interpretation of the law.

As an aside, “Alice in Wonderland” has been cited in more that a couple of USSC decisions. Such a citation would have been appropriate in this decision.

[SeaHawkFan]

The same is true of many miltary acadamy graduates.

[Tenacious 1]

I am not a fisherman, but I thought that when you catch a fish that is too small, that you are supposed to throw them back...

Ahhh. See, you miss the point of the law. The Red Herring here is that when said protected fish (or size of said fish) gets on the hook, you are a criminal. It's all incedental after that.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

[Tenacious 1]

Perhaps we shouldn’t fear implosion...

In fact, most of us are eager to bring the implosion on hard and quick so that we may get to the business of re-building. How ironic is that. We have given up trying to turn around the ship and believe it easier to sink this ship and build a new one. The reason for this is the humans that represent the American interests that have been elected..... You get the point.

[Tenacious 1]

My daughter goes out on fishing boats and counts fish for the gov’t. Highly regulated industry thanks to the environmentalists.

I bet her politics and yours are not well aligned when it comes to "shrinking government".

LOL

[jwalsh07]

Good grief.

[Tenacious 1]

Oh stop. Might as well criticize her for breathing. She “cited” Dr. Suess to the undisputed point that a fish is a real object. It’s called a joke.

You make a good point. I suppose this is finding a joke within a joke.

[cuban leaf]

I didn’t know that. It’s just the “politically charged” ones that are split...

[Rusty0604]

The whole thing is absurd if you ask me. A guy can’t catch some small fish and throw them back in the water without ending up in the Supreme Court of the United States, Where one of the Justices bases her opinion on Dr. Seuss?

[Rusty0604]

You just don’t want us to have any fun!

[Yaelle]

Post of the thread.