Appellate Law

Best comments

By S. COTUS

Yesterday I promised that I would be providing some odds and ends, and I even suggested that I might make a snarky remark about Ted Frank?s spreadsheet. I have to admit that I was having a hard time saying something snarky about a spreadsheet. Luckily, Ted Frank posted the following comment which, pretty much does the job for me. But, he has some serious competition for zaniest comment. 

It's funny how I check into this blog for the first time in almost two years, and right away in the first post I read, you get the holding of a case 180 degrees wrong. I plainly haven't missed anything, and you're still plainly not reading (or, at least, understanding) the cases you're talking about.

So, to summarize, the minute the words ?Ted Frank? and ?spreadsheet? appear on this blog, ?Ted Frank? appears to tell me that I got a case wrong and that I "don't know what I am talking about." Not sure what case or why it was wrong, but I find politically-motivated think-tanker humor amusing. (Obviously it is different than lawyer humor, of course, so it takes some getting used to. Maybe I can come up with a few of my own. How about, ?How many think-tankers does it take to change a light bulb? Three. One to solicit money from donors, one to talk about how they support the donor?s positions based on their own research, and one to call building maintenance." ) 

But, in Ted Frank?s humor, there is some truth. I actually do not read anything that I write about.  Never have.  Never will.  Any resemblance to actual cases (i.e. every case from the First) is coincidental.

Next on the ?zany comments? list is a comment from ? get this ? an ?former inmate.? He writes:

I am the former inmate that wrote the appellee brief on this. The First went 180 degrees opposite the other Circuits AND itself in Goldings v. Winn. Goldings set the stage for all the other Circuits shooting down the BOP. Good to have a Bush boy as the chief judge sitting on this one. 

So, folks, I don?t know which comment is better.  Maybe some people  would like to  review either comment.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on March 05, 2008 (boomark / email).