Unscripted

Today the summers all went to the Federal Circuit to watch oral arguments. An attorney from our firm was arguing in the last case, so that was cool to see, but I wish that the panel had grilled him a little harder on some points in his arguments. But the real highlight of the day was the two awful attorneys who argued in different cases. The first one was some dude, maybe 80 years old. I wasn't sure if he would answer the judges' questions or have a stroke: either seemed an equally likely possibility. It was almost impossible to understand him and he didn't really respond to the judges' questions. Note to self: don't send senile attorneys to court. The second was probably worse. She was a government attorney and had what was clearly the winning side of an argument. But she was also very new - this may have been her first oral argument. As such, she pretty much just read off of a script and was asked maybe one question. After she was done and the case was submitted, one of the judges leaned over at her and said: "Let me give you a piece of advice for next time: don't read your argument." It was absolutely devastating. When the case was all over she walked out of the court looking about to cry. Hey judge, this is a real case with real interests on the line, not a moot court competition. I understand that he was trying to be nice, but that is insanely cruel. There were also about a dozen better ways to say that to her, and he could not come up with one. Ouch.

At a point in his argument, another attorney stated, "I may not be the sharpest lawyer in this room, but I think it's pretty clear..." To which a judge responded, "Humility is nice, but don't sell yourself short." Definitely never seen that before.

Then we went to lunch with the partner who argued in court today. Due to a lack of reservations and creativity by the waitstaff, we had two separate tables of four rather than one of eight. I did not get to sit with the partner, which I wanted to do to ask him about his appellate practice and question him on some of the weaker points of today's argument (yeah, I'm a nerd). It was lucky, as it turned out, that I was not at that table. Apparently the conversation turned to politics, and I am not (politely) of the same mind on many matters as the partner. This, combined with me having a hard time keeping my mouth shut, would have brought about potentially disastrous consequences. Better that I eat my salad and shut up.

Since I couldn't say do it at lunch, I will now. Republicans (read while shaking your fist in the air).

You know you are in Washington when: you have had a serious conversation with your friend about the merits of raising the debt ceiling at a bar.
You know you are in Washington when: wearing a suit jacket is the best and worst decision of the day. Worst when you are walking outside, best when your teeth are chattering from the air conditioning.

Greater good

Both a lot, and very little has happened this week. I'm just ready to get this midterm over, and I'm thankful that it's Friday and I don't have class next week. Of course I have Memo 2 to beast, but all in due time. I also have baseball to watch, even if the Red Sox have sadly sucked sufficiently to be taken out of the postseason. Oh yeah, and Torts to study for. Meh, I'm not too worried.

What I am worried about is Gunner's conduct in class. One day I am going to lose it and just yell at him. His ability to get called on is downright uncanny. He gets to voice his (dumb) opinion usually a minimum of 3 times per class. And he always starts off with "Well as I take it," or "In my experience." No one cares what you have to say! And two thirds of the time what you say is exactly wrong. Often the professor is too nice to tell you that point blank, but I think they are losing their patience. Yesterday Gunner was particularly bad, which is what is inspiring this. In Torts, for whatever reason, he started saying a theory of liability seemed to be justified by "the greater good. Like Nietzsche and Nazi-fascist kind of thing." He continued for a minute or two talking about how Nietzsche valued the greater societal good while the five philosophy majors in my class had miniature seizures. Jared started audibly saying "No, no, no," and after a minute of my mouth hanging open I couldn't control myself and just said "That's not what Nietzsche says. At all." By the way, Nietzsche is a rabid individualist, who has no purposeful ideological ties to fascism and says nothing of the sort. After class Jared went up to him and asked Gunner what Nietzsche he had read. "Some things," was the response. It quickly became apparent that by "some things" he meant "nothing." And Jared politely told him he was full of crap. I had nothing nice to say, so I said nothing at all. But this is why people shouldn't repeat stupid things that they hear just to sound smart.

Speaking of things I don't understand, Matt shared a nice article about the large Hadron collidor (that physics thing in Switzerland?) which is crazy. It's in the NYTimes. Apparently there is a particle they are trying to create which two physicists believe is so unnatural that the particle is actually working against its own creation and will sabotage the project. The useful analogy they provide is a time traveler going back in time to kill his grandfather. What? Are you for serious? This is blowing my mind! Ask Matt about it, he'll have a better grasp. Physics is something I know nothing about, but wish I did. Not liking numbers or math makes it pretty rough to keep up though. However I did have a crazy conversation with Dan about the possibility of time travel. A philosophy major and an economics major talking about something neither of them have much of an idea about, it was pretty sweet. It makes me miss dorm room philosophy. And dorm room Matt explaining science to me so I have slightly more than zero grasp on science. I still don't understand entropy, and I'm becoming convinced I never will!

My boss from the summer who I hated may be in a bit of trouble (read: out of a job) quite soon. I will be following developments with a stupid grin on my face.

This afternoon I went to court to observe a criminal trial, on orders from my Crim Law professor. The judge has a button that creates white noise during side bar conversations so the jury can't hear. It's so cool! I want one! The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute. He was caught with an eight ball (3.5 oz.) of coke, and half an ounce of pot. The defense is just trying to get them to drop the intent to distribute. Good luck with that. He was caught with the drugs in 32 separate baggies? Oh right, because that's how drugs are usually used and not sold. Good call. Highlight was when the defendant was on the stand and responded to a question that he has never smoked drugs with anyone else, always by himself. That's about as believable as Nicholas Cage's acting. Hi, my name is perjury. Ok, cool.