- In the Boumediene oral arguments, both sides presented extensive argument regarding foreign law. I wonder why pundits have not condemned the government for doing this. In fact, by my count, more foreign cases were cited in oral arguments by the government then domestic ones. In fact, these arguments were made in the context of proposed constructions of our constitution. For some reason there were absolutely no condemnations of the government for looking to foreign law. But, if you set this aside, a great job was done by both advocates. Orin Kerr comments here. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, the comments in the blogopshere are by people that irreparably injure America and all that we stand for by commenting on the arguments of the parties without reading their briefs.
- You can view the Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo trailer here.
- The .wma file of oral arguments in Igartúa-de La Rosa v. US, 04-2186 (our coverage here and here) popped up on an alert reader's RSS feeder.
- California Appellate report and others report on the Ninth Circuit striking an entire brief because it was really bad. The case is Sekiya v. Gates (9th Cir. - Nov. 29, 2007). While it is easy to trash lawyers, I am going to withhold judgment on the lawyer that wrote it.
- The Insurance Coverage Blog has had many posts (e.g.) about the story of Dickie Scruggs. Very fascinating.
- Saudi rape lawyer hearing delayed: CNN has this story about Abdul Rahman al-Lahem (who represented a rape victim). He is accused of “insulting the Supreme Judicial Council and disobeying the rules and regulations.” This, of course, is Saudi Arabia, which has nothing resembling a First Amendment.
He said his opponents' influence is on the wane. "They believe that any criticism of the judiciary system is a direct criticism of the Islamic Sharia law, and they consider that any criticism is a criticism of religion itself," he said.
Obviously, no American lawyer would ever be disciplined or insulted for insulting a Judicial entity.
Comments