Latin dead? Hold the postmortem!

In a Sixth Circuit opinion released today in which he chastises the State of Michigan for confusing the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, Judge Boyce Martin decided to apply the doctrine Michigan probably meant to argue (collateral estoppel) noting in a footnote that "Latin is a dead language anyway."

His colleague, Judge Alice Batchelder, filed a one paragraph concurring opinion which in its entirety reads as follows:

I concur in Judge Martin’s opinion. I write separately only to express my suspicion that, like the reports of Mark Twain’s death, see The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition, 2002), the report of the death of Latin in the majority opinion’s footnote 5 is greatly exaggerated.

So I guess Latin as a language is every bit as alive as Mark Twain is?

On the other hand, Rident stolidi verba Latina. (Fools laugh at the Latin language.) ----Ovid

Hat Tip to The Volokh Conspiracy.

Now this is something you don't see every day.

Law.com reports that San Francisco United States District Court Judge Martin Jenkins wants to give up his lifetime tenure on the federal trial bench to become a judge on the California Court of Appeal and thereby subject himself to periodic retention elections.

The article notes that "[t]hose close to him have indicated his practice of working long hours and meticulous attention to detail in a large federal caseload has taken a toll."

Well I hate to puncture anyone's balloon but the job of a state appellate judge everywhere I am familiar with (including California) also involves a large caseload and meticulous attention to detail (at least if you are going to do the job right).

By all accounts, Judge Jenkins is an outstanding jurist and if he is appointed, I have no doubt that he would be a tremendous asset to the California court system. Besides, it is always a pleasant surprise when one of the elite decide to join the ranks of what certain people refer to as "icky state judges."

Hat Tip to David Lat at ATL.

An interesting historical footnote.

As I have said before, I don't blog about politics but I do sometimes blog about history and with that disclaimer and against the background of the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, I offer this link to an article by Professor John Barrett of St. Johns University Law School who reminds us that there have been times when the office of Attorney General was actually held in high esteem by its occupants.

Justice Robert H. Jackson is one of my personal legal heroes. He epitomized professionalism in his practice and in every office he ever held. It is therefore not at all surprising that, following his nomination by FDR to a seat on the Supreme Court, he immediately took steps to avoid any appearance of impropriety by turning over day-to-day operations of the Justice Department to the Solicitor General, Francis Biddle. What is surprising, as Professor Barrett notes, is that after taking the oath of office as an Associate Justice, he realized that he had forgotten to resign as Attorney General and therefore briefly held both offices simultaneously.

Binoculars in stuffed toys for the weirdo on your Christmas list.

Now this just creeps me out.

Those amateur capitalists in China have apparently decided that there are sufficient Peeping Toms in the world to provide a market for the head of a stuffed animal wrapped around a pair of binoculars.

If whatever the Chinese made them out of doesn't make you sick or kill your dog, you can spy on the old lady next door and she will just think you are now the proud owner of a fluffy pink zombie pig.

Norway - Where only volunteers go to prison.

There is no prison overcrowding problem in Norway because it seems that in that country, "doing time" is optional. About 20% of convicted criminals simply fail to show up to serve their sentence.

According to Aftenposten:

The dilemma facing the prison authorities is that failure to show up at prison is not yet illegal. Although Parliament has passed new legislation making it a criminal offence to skip prison, the law has not yet been implemented and until it is, prison authorities can do nothing but hope that the criminals will eventually show up at the prison gates.

What really amazes me is that apparently 80% of the convicted criminals voluntarily show up to serve their sentences!

The pressure! Oh, the pressure!

I guess I am honored to be ranked as one of the "blogs that judges read" by the newsletter of the National Judicial College, but in view of the very valid concerns about judges blogging expressed in the article, I think a brief explanation is in order.

I know judges, especially appellate judges, are expected to be hothouse flowers who do nothing but read briefs, cases, statutes, treatises and law review articles while contemplating the intricacies of the Constitution. In reality we are real people with a host of other interests.

As the description at the top of this page announces, this blog represents a vehicle for passing along items I find interesting and for expressing some observations or even an occasional rant about something that bothers me. Having said that, I recognize that the Canons of Judicial Conduct require that I must be very careful about the subjects that I blog about and what I say in my posts. Anyone who troubles to scroll through the archives of this blog will discover that in addition to the law, I am interested in many other things and I have tried and I hope succeeded in 1) entertaining my readers with amusing items on a variety of subjects that I find all over the place; 2) sharing my interests in all things geeky, especially in the area of "green" tech; and 3) in some small way, occasionally making a positive contribution to the dialog about professionalism in the practice of law, particularly in the appellate arena.

I started this blog as an outlet for me and I was frankly surprised at the reaction when I suspended it last year. Although my posting frequency has slowed lately as the workload of my day job has picked up, I plan to continue on in the same vein and I welcome any comments, questions and constructive criticism.

No Parking and it looks like they really mean it!

Now this is what I call a "No Parking" sign.

Colorcoding the Supremes.

In the current issue of the ABA Journal Magazine, Philadelphia lawyer Andy Gowa suggests that the justices on the Supreme Court of the United States make better use of their robes by coordinating their color with the subject matter of the issues before the court. He suggests for example "burnt umber to project warmth in child rights and family law matters and dark charcoals and blacks to project sobriety and seriousness in death penalty cases."

As I noted here, our colleagues in England and Wales are moving in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, I would welcome other suggestions from readers of this blog - perhaps IBM blue or ExxonMobil red in antitrust cases, lime or chartreuse in environmental cases or pink, purple or heliotrope for those civil union or same sex marriage cases.

Of course, if this catches on, John Roberts and the Supremes will go through as many wardrobe changes in the course of a day as Diana Ross and her Supremes did.

NYT: Real life is really Sim Life (TM).

According to Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, the chances are pretty good that we're currently existing not in the "real world," but instead are a vast computer simulation created by a future, further advanced version of ourselves. Basically, Bostrom argues that because computing power will advance to the point where a system could be built that could simulate every brain on earth, future "posthumans" could set up an "ancestor simulator" that would be indistinguishable from real life for the inhabitants.

While Bostrom thinks there's a 20% chance of our entire world being a computer simulation, John Tierney of the New York Times thinks the odds are closer to even.

Cheer up though, even if it's true and this is really all happening in the PC of some future Bill Gates, it's not so bad, as long as the computer isn't running Windows. That Blue Screen of Death would be a really lame way to go.

Motion to continue in order to please wife is granted.

Apparently, the bankruptcy judges in the Sixth Circuit are very understanding when it comes to a conflict between representing a client and marital bliss. However, I suspect that if the wife in question ever reads this motion and discovers that her spouse would prefer oral argument in bankruptcy court over a bike trip with her, he will wind up listening to about 350 miles worth of oral argument from her.

Thanks to Above the Law