High court or theater of the absurd?
March 28, 2007
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case of a former Alaska high school student who was suspended for displaying a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” during an Olympic torch parade in 2002 has divided legal commentators and pundits. Some see it as a clear test of the First Amendment right to free speech. Others argue that the case challenges a school’s ability to establish and enforce drug policies on campus. Still others maintain that Morse vs. Frederick is a showdown over religious freedom.
Few, curiously, have detected an important ideological shift that this case represents. Legal historians will identify the spring of 2007 as the moment when the nation’s high court chose to directly engage the surrealism and random nonsense of American life. “It doesn’t matter what they decide about that gooney banner,” said a veteran observer of the court, who asked that his name not be used because it is so frequently misspelled. “It’s deciding to decide something that’s going to be decisive in the long run. This will be the precedent for a whole new slew of precedents.”
Bloggers, who have been curiously slow to pick up on this jurisprudential sea change, are now busily combing the confirmation records of recent court appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. “Did anyone on that committee think to ask Roberts who his favorite playwright was?” one cyberanalyst rhetorically posted, then raised the name of Theater of the Absurd master Eugène Ionesco in response. “Did they know his (Roberts’) high school did ‘Rhinoceros’ during his senior year? And what about that ‘Spiderman’ routine Roberts’ young son did on camera? This sort of thing runs in the family.” Remarking on the current court’s unusual proclivity for public appearances, University of Chicago law professor Dennis Hutchinson has said of the new chief justice, “Roberts is putting a smiley face in the center chair.”
Alito and his ideological opposite David Souter reportedly share a fondness for “Dancing with the Stars,” “Nanny 911″ and the nonsense verse of Edward Lear. “They can both recite ‘Dingle Bank’ and ‘The Jumblies’ and lots more Lear poems by heart,” said a clerk for another justice, who disguised his identity by speaking in a falsetto voice from under a desk. “You should hear those two giggling about what was on TV the night before when the rest of them are nodding off during a long argument. I’m telling you, it makes the days of pubic hair on Coke cans seem like the Age of Enlightenment.”
Despite speculation that the justices will soon wear fur-trimmed powder blue robes on special occasions, court watchers believe the new trend is a matter of substance more than style, with long-term implications. Here are a few prospective cases the Roberts’ smiley-face court may elect to hear:
Artest vs. Placer County. Ron Artest, a star basketball player for the Sacramento Kings, sued the Placer County Sheriff’s Department for refusing to let him work off his criminal record by wiping his teammates’ sweat from the Arco Arena floor during his suspension from the team. Artest’s most recent brush with the law came earlier this month, when he was cited for shoving his wife during a domestic dispute. This follows a list of other headline-making incidents for the athlete, including a 73-game suspension from the NBA for brawling with fans during a 2004 game.
Artest’s attorney, Cobblesworth Battle, argues that the player has made a good faith offer to fulfill his obligation and is being denied due process and the career-enhancing publicity supermodel Naomi Campbell recently enjoyed for her community service stint as a trash collector. Campbell spent five days beautifying New York City streets after pleading guilty to an assault charge for throwing a cell phone at her housekeeper. She showed up for work every day in designer clothing, attended by TV cameras and a swarm of paparazzi.
“My client and Ms. Campbell are no different,” Battle said. “They’re both public figures with images to protect. Ron’s offer to swab the floors at Arco demonstrates not only his humility but his commitment to the team and to the game of basketball. If anybody understands how dangerous a slippery floor can be, it’s a player.” Battle noted that Artest has become so depressed by his plight that he told teammates he may retire from basketball. Battle said he would seek additional damages for the loss of income if the floor-mopping offer is not reconsidered. “ESPN2 was going to do a whole series. The image of an All-Star with a mop in his hands has enormous commercial value.”
Discount Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at discount prices including free shipping.Discount Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order discount pharmacy online.
Smedley vs. Lilly ICOS. This suit turns on the complaint of Knoxville, Tenn., insurance underwriter Justin Smedley that the drug company’s warnings about the side effects of its erectile dysfunction product Cialis irreparably harmed his marriage. “It got to where I couldn’t look at my wife, much less get under the covers with her,” said Smedley in a sworn affidavit. “All I could think about was headaches, backaches, muscle pain, upset stomach and possible vision problems. Heck, I started worrying about operating heavy machinery. I didn’t even want to mow the lawn anymore, which was always something Katie kind of liked, with the smell of fresh cut grass on me when I came indoors.”
Lilly’s lawyers have countered that the pharmaceutical giant was only fulfilling its Food and Drug Administration-mandated obligation to disclose the side effects of its products. “We’d be at fault if we didn’t let people know the very minor risks as well as the abundant rewards,” the company said in a statement. “Millions of couples have been rejuvenated by Cialis.”
“I don’t care about millions of couples,” Smedley said. “All I know is that whenever I saw that ad with the outdoor bathtubs and those two hands stretched out for the just-right moment, I wilted. I knew what was coming next, and that was it: I wilted.”
Doyle and Kim vs. Friendster. McMinnville, Ore., college students Miriam Doyle and Lila Kim charge that the influential online social networking site has ruined their social lives. “We couldn’t go anywhere without running into someone we recognized,” Kim testified in a preliminary hearing. “I mean, it’s just incredibly upsetting to see people walking and moving around when you know all this stuff about them from their profiles, what songs they like and where they went on spring break and how brain-dead their parents are. Plus they knew all this stuff about us. It was like we were all androids or had X-ray vision and could see what everyone was thinking and feeling when really, we were all just these strangers at the mall. Mir and I just started staying in more and more and not even going to classes. We’re roommates? In Hewitt Hall?”
The judge asked Kim to stop talking and said he would take the case under advisement.
Chalmers vs. Bishkek. Plaintiff Paul Chalmers contends that the opening of this Brooklyn restaurant featuring food from Kyrgyzstan represents an abridgment of his constitutional right to continually discover new cuisines within U.S. borders. “Now that I’ve had Kyrgyz-style shashlik, plov and manti there’s nothing left to taste,” said Chalmers, a Winnetka, Ill., patent attorney who travels widely to dine but never leaves the country. “I’m bereft. I’d heard that a Uruguayan mutton house was coming to Detroit, but the chef ran into immigration problems and the whole thing’s on hold.”
Chalmers said on “Larry King Live” that he enjoyed his three meals at Bishkek and found the menu very similar to an Azerbaijani bistro outside Providence, R.I. “But there were subtle differences, too,” he told King. “The use of dried barberry was especially distinctive.”
Chalmers, 59, said he has patronized 8,593 restaurants, representing 2,719 national and regional cuisines. “Now what am I supposed to do? Go back to eating Yemeni food? Mauritanian? Laotian?” He is seeking undisclosed damages.
Posted by toshko under Cialis News | Comments (0)