Congressional Motors Presents the 2012 Pelosi.

Although whoever wrote this has an obvious rightward tilt, and even though I am pretty "green" when it comes to cars and houses, with all that's going on in Detroit and Washington these days, this is just too funny not to share.

It's in the way you dress. The way you boogie down. The way you sign your unemployment check. You're a man who likes to do things your own way. And on those special odd-numbered Saturdays when driving is permitted, you want it in your car. It's that special feeling of a zero-emissions wind at your back and a road ahead meandering with possibilities. The kind of feeling you get behind the wheel of the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition from Congressional Motors.

All new for 2012, the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition is the mandatory American car so advanced it took $100 billion and an entire Congress to design it. We started with same reliable 7-way hybrid ethanol-biodeisel-electric-clean coal-wind-solar-pedal power plant behind the base model Pelosi, but packed it with extra oomph and the sassy styling pizazz that tells the world that 1974 Detroit is back again -- with a vengeance.

We've subsidized the features you want and taxed away the rest. With its advanced Al Gore-designed V-3 under the hood pumping out 22.5 thumping, carbon-neutral ponies of Detroit muscle, you'll never be late for the Disco or the Day Labor Shelter. Engage the pedal drive or strap on the optional jumbo mizzenmast, and the GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition easily exceeds 2016 CAFE mileage standards. At an estimated 268 MPG, that's a savings of nearly $1800 per week in fuel cost over the 2011 Pelosi.

Even with increased performance we didn't skimp on safety. With 11-point passenger racing harnesses, 15-way airbags, and mandatory hockey helmet, you'll have the security knowing that you could survive a 45 MPH collision even if the GTxi SS/Rt were capable of that kind of illegal speed.

But the changes don't stop there. Sporty mag-style hubcaps and an all-new aggressive wedge shape designed by CM's Chief Stylist Ted Kennedy slices through the wind like an omnibus spending bill. It even features an airtight undercarriage to keep you and a passenger afloat up to 15 minutes -- even in the choppy waters of a Cap Cod inlet. Available in a rainbow of color choices to match any wardrobe, from Harvest Avocado to French Mustard.

Inside, a luxurious all-velour interior designed by Barney Frank features thoughtful appointments like in-dash condom dispenser and detachable vibrating shift knob. A special high capacity hatchback holds up to 300 aluminum cans, meaning fewer trips to the redemption center. And the standard 3 speaker Fairness ActoPhonic FM low-band sound system means you'll never miss a segment of NPR again. Best of all, the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt is made right here in the U.S.A. by fully card-checked unionized workers and Detroit's famous visionary jet-set managers. Even if you don't own one, you can enjoy the patriotic satisfaction that you're supporting the high wages, good benefits, and generous political donations that are once again making the American car industry the envy of the world.

But why not buy one anyway? With an MSRP starting at only $629,999.99, it's affordable too. Don't forget to ask about dealer incentives, rebates, tax credits, and wealth redistribution plans for customers from dozens of qualifying special interest groups. Plus easy-pay financing programs from Fanny Mae. So take the bus to your local CM dealer today and find out why the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition is the only car endorsed by President Barack Obama. One test drive will convince you that you'd choose it over the import brands. Even if they were still legal.

Hat tip to Autoblog.

Should only law professors be appellate judges?

Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School offers advice to President-elect Obama here about the type of appellate judges he should appoint during his term. Professor Tobias' advice can be summed up in two words - "law professors."

Implicit in the good professor's piece is the clear suggestion that the federal courts of appeal (presumably including the Supreme Court) cannot perform their function effectively unless every judge or justice was a law professor before donning the robe.

All I can say is "WOW, what arrogance!"

Professor's Tobias' supports his premise by observing that "Much of the work that law professors undertake strikingly resembles the responsibilities that appellate judges discharge. For example, when conducting scholarship, academics objectively analyze, synthesize and criticize a series of case precedents, attempt to evaluate relevant legal issues from a "big picture" viewpoint, and proffer suggestions for improvements in the law."

So let me get this straight, only law professors are capable of scholarly research, analyzing legal principles and facts objectively, synthesis and criticism of legal precedent, seeing the "big picture," or suggesting improvements in the law? I guess you can't possibly be capable of those things if you actually practiced law or otherwise prospered professionally outside of an ivory tower.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have any problem with a law professor becoming a judge. There are a couple of them on my court and they are fine judges and demonstrate all of the characteristics noted by Professor Tobias. Of course most of my colleagues who have never been law professors exhibit the same abilities. I think that the best appellate courts are those with judges who came to the bench from a mix of backgrounds and with variety in their curriculum vitae.

Can you imagine if all of our past Presidents had subscribed to Professor Tobias' approach? We would have missed out on the contributions to the judiciary made by judges like John Marshall, Benjamin Cardozo, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., or Learned Hand to name but a few.

As far as I'm concerned, the federal appellate courts are increasingly a judicial theocracy that is often out of touch with the real world in which the law operates. As the old aphorism goes, academics are capable of squabbling with each other with an intensity that is possible only because the stakes are so low. I don't think a solution to that problem is to put them in a setting where the stakes are much higher.


Thanks to my cyber-colleague Steve of Virginia Appellate blog fame for the tip.

British judges more willing to talk to the press.

Judges typically don't talk to the press but the London Times reports here that changes may be in store as more "activist" judges are appointed who see in the media an opportunity to educate the British public about the courts and the role of a judge. Can't you just see somebody dressed like this doing a press confeence?

Actually, I applaud this approach. I have long thought that judges ought utilize the media to do more to educate the public about the judicial system and the business of judging as long as they avoid commenting on specific cases. Of course I am also in the minority of judges who find nothing wrong with the media televising judicial proceedings.