New Yorker magazine alert thread

ooo, link?

feel like nyer is pandering to me w/ the dog stories of late, simultaneously pandering to me and humiliating me 'we can make you read gopnik'.

oops

Clash of the Wolves - 1..."
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by National Film Preservation Foundation.

'originalism' always strikes me as more of a way for right-wingers to justify their less popular beliefs than a coherent belief system. judicial review isn't in the constitution either -- john marshall essentially invented the power for the court in marbury v. madison -- but i don't think most originalists are eager to get rid of that one.

I love that Warner Bros savior and first American dog star was a German dog found in France!

I have a grudging respect for Thomas based on his politeness to other justices, albeit distant, and his silence, while troubling, is at least purportedly based on his desire to hear the attorneys w/o interruption. I too have listened to teachers w/eyes closed though in my case that may have had more to do w/fatigue than anything else.

OPTIMIFIC

That's a word.

Re Clarence Thomas: I feel like people are getting hung up on descriptions like "intellectual heavyweight" -- regardless of how sharp or profound his insights or analyses are, he has rigorously staked out positions and judicial philosophies that, if nothing else, seem to be influential on the current court.

"I have a cunning plan"

the problem is it's not just "nothing else"; it's also a ton of what seems to me to be utterly wrongheaded thinking

Emotional baggage

Well, sure, but that's why I wouldn't personally use the word "heavyweight."

well, Toobin did say he's gained sixty pounds since 1991.

dude does not seem that intellectual at all, or at least not smart enough to have any sort of self-awareness at how bizarre his behavior is (i'm talking price tag on his yale degree bizarre).

i mean sure he's smart but he's not. . . you know

Re Clarence Thomas: I feel like people are getting hung up on descriptions like "intellectual heavyweight" -- regardless of how sharp or profound his insights or analyses are, he has rigorously staked out positions and judicial philosophies that, if nothing else, seem to be influential on the current court.

― jaymc, Thursday, September

I do not think he has influenced anyone else on the court to a significant degree tbh. He is staking out the same well-trodden turf as numerous other conservative justices, or going even further to the right than others in separate opinions that are not signed off on by even the other conservatives on the bench.

I also think that many of the questions other justices ask in oral argument are pretty sharp, and his reasoning for not asking them is a bit lazy intellectually.

He doesn't need to ask! He knows his own mind! He's a heavyweight!

Kidding aside, Toobin said Thomas' influence extends more towards conservative legal scholars than, say, Scalia and Alito (who don't need suasion).

yeah, i mean Hurting was right, a lot of times they already know their positions when it gets to oral argument, plus i think Alfred mentioned there are other justices in the past who didn't ask a lot of questions

When sharp interlocutors like Scalia and Breyer (the two yappiest guy on the bench) are at their peak, they look more interested in steering counsel away from acknowledging contradictory positions or, if they're on the other side, to trip them; they're not at all trying to convince their fellow justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/16/does-clarence-thomass-silence-matter/a-matter-of-personal-style

this is a pretty great little debate on the NYT website

I do not think he has influenced anyone else on the court to a significant degree tbh. He is staking out the same well-trodden turf as numerous other conservative justices, or going even further to the right than others in separate opinions that are not signed off on by even the other conservatives on the bench.

I also think that many of the questions other justices ask in oral argument are pretty sharp, and his reasoning for not asking them is a bit lazy intellectually.

― curmudgeon, Thursday, 1 September 2011 18:07 (33 minutes ago) Permalink

I don't think the point is really his influence on SCOTUS (I mean, he already has a vote on that which is a lot of influence in itself) so much as influence on lower courts, legal challenges, etc. SCOTUS dissents provide a blueprint for attorneys and justices at lower levels as to how a compelling argument can be made for the minority side. They get cited often, and even though they're not supposed to be precedential, the weight that they carry influences courts.

I'm sure this'll make me sound terrible but I'm really bummed that this thread has become another discussion about politics + SCOTUS and not a long discourse on the merits of Rin Tin Tin.

I can't get that Rin Tin Tin article on line! Otherwise I would talk about it!

im bummed no one wanted to talk about the scientology new yorker i posted upthread

x-post-

Jaymc suggested that Thomas was "influential on the current court" so I was responding in disagreement to that. Jaymc may have been echoing Toobin a bit who in the article suggests that:

In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more.

While it is correct that a Thomas opinion did subsequently inspire the folks who brought the Heller gun case, I still think the change at the Supreme Court largely occurred because of the change in membership (Roberts and Alito joining) and not because of anything Thomas has been saying(I don't see him as a "leader" or "leading"). I am curious if law reviews and others have researched how much Thomas opinions are getting cited by federal appeals court and district court judges. I would like to see the facts on that. Also, Thomas I believe like most conservative judges is a Federalist Society member, an organization that some law students join, so there is a general familiarity with some of the ideas Thomas is supporting within the legal community and it has been there for quite some time.

"im bummed no one wanted to talk about the scientology new yorker i posted upthread"

The original Haggis one? Or the Scientology response article?

I have several friends convinced a Scientologist mailman took their issue.

I liked how pithy and workmanlike the Rin Tin Tin piece was. Almost read like a digest or something. What was America's last animal star, a la RTT, Benji, Flipper, Mr. Ed, etc?

For that matter, when was the last time Orlean popped up in the New Yorker? I just read our kids her kids book, which was impressively wordy/worded.

I thought the CoS actually published an entire parody issue of The New Yorker in response/revenge? Max that's what yr talking about no?

the scientology response with the fake cartoon captions i posted upthread!! its hilarious!!!!

yes god i posted it on this thread until all you bozos wanted to talk about "the supreme court" which btw we have a thread for

sorry max

thank you, apology accepted

no bozos
(that's my soul up there)

http://rlv.zcache.com/i_wont_apologize_for_being_american_skull_gear_tshirt-p235838770202405518u2o7_400.jpg

"the scientology response with the fake cartoon captions i posted upthread!! its hilarious!!!!"

But it's just hard to read scans!

last genuine american animal star was maybe spuds mackenzie? Or Benji if you mean non-ad based?

Free Willy

Socks the Cat

For that matter, when was the last time Orlean popped up in the New Yorker?

From what I recall from Max's classic "you guys new yorker writers are fighting on twitter" thread, she's basically been working on this Rin Tin Tin book for the last few years and has some sort of cozy deal with the magazine where she only has to write like one article a year and they still keep her on staff.

last genuine american animal star was maybe spuds mackenzie? Or Benji if you mean non-ad based?

― Reddit Me Bro (forksclovetofu), Thursday, September 1, 2011 4:30 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark

Fuckin' Winston, yo.

I won't apologize for being American, either (had nothing to do with that), only for shit that's worthy of an apology ffs. Man, the whiny, puerile, CO2 emitting annoyances that call themselves humans sometimes...

Nice crop, tho

last genuine american animal star was maybe spuds mackenzie? Or Benji if you mean non-ad based?

what about Eddie from Frasier?

last genuine american animal star was maybe spuds mackenzie? Or Benji if you mean non-ad based?

― Reddit Me Bro (forksclovetofu), Thursday, September 1, 2011 4:30 PM (28 minutes ago)

AIR BUD

i think the question is like, an animal who could carry a movie or a tv show as the lead? and not just as a one off novelty, but an animal that people paid to see the same way they go to see clooney in movies

So i'm going with benji.

there were like 5 air buds! i watched at least 2 of them!

channing tatum

Pretty sure people are paying their monthly broadband bills almost solely to watch Winston on YouTube.

Well, Toobin, like lots of practicing lawyers, is bound by their honor code; he can't get as critical as we'd like. I accept his toothless prose cuz he's the only one offering these insights.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

Didn't stop him from airing thos eunsourced comments about how Sotomayor was supposed to be stupid.