High Court Divided...

This humorous column from Dahlia Lithwick at Law.com is a gem. (HT: SCOTUSblog) Here are a few excepts:

From: mailto:EvenStevens@
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 24, 2005
RE: Lunch??

Colleagues: Where should we take these Irish judges to lunch next week? Suggestions? Cordially JPS
. . . . . . . . . ..
...
. . . . . . . . . ..
From: SwingVote@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 24, 2005
RE: RE: RE: Lunch??

How about one of Café Berlin, Bistro Bis, or La Coline? Bien sur, the bouillabaisse at the latter is magnifique. Best, "Antoine" Kennedy
. . . . . . . . . ..
From: NinoNoir@ scotus.gov
To:
SwingVote@ scotus.gov; mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 24, 2005
RE: With the Frenchie Crap again!!??!

You
swishy little Euro-wimp. What the heck is wrong with American restaurants? Are we really going to bind ourselves, yet again, by what a bunch of foreigners would do? This is an American court, operating on American soil, under the provisions of an American constitution. The very idea of entertaining Irish visitors next week at all is evidence of the shallow, faddish, follow-the-crowd internationalism threatening the core foundations of American Constitutionalism today. I vote for Applebee's in Chevy Chase. The one with the onion flowers. Nino
. . . . . . . . . ..
From: BreyerBreyerPantsOnFire@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 25, 2005
RE: A compromise solution

It seems to me that there are at least four ways in which we can analyze this question. Let's assume, for a moment, that-as in Justice Scalia's last hypothetical-Applebee's were located on the moon. But, located on an American colony on the moon, in which federal jurisdiction was exclusively American, except maybe in matters of sentencing guidelines or conflicts over the density of the atmosphere. Lunar law would control in those areas. My question, if you are still following me, is whether moon colony or Applebee's law could preempt federal law? Please consult the attached 14-page memorandum for further discussion of this and other hypotheticals. Yours, Steve PS: I vote for Bullfeathers
. . . . . . . . . . ..
...
. . . . . . . . . ..
From: SwingVote@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 26, 2005
RE: Ad Hominem Attacks

Nino: I don't imagine it occurs to you that the French were making bouillabaisse back when savages were eating nuts and berries in this country? Bouillabaisse is part of a vast and sweeping tapestry of history and culture-all the richness of the world's finest minds and notions, heightened by the sweetness of human dignity and worth and . . . um . . . more dignity that represents the highest human achievement of our time. That you seek to sweep French cuisine into the dusty corners of history is yet more evidence of a creeping isolationism that imperils the very freedom you so claim to cherish. Cheers, Antoine
. . . . . . . . . ..
From: NinoNoir@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 26, 2005
RE: Originalism

The Framers would have executed a 16-year-old before they would touch bouillabaisse. Just FYI. AS
. . . . . . . . . ..
From: SwingVote@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 26, 2005
RE: Evolving standards

Which is why it falls on us, as judges, to determine whether the standards of delicious have changed
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
From: NinoNoir@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 26, 2005
RE: RE: Ad Hominem Attacks

Activist
. . . . . . . . . . ..
From: SwingVote@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 26, 2005
RE: RE: RE: Ad Hominem Attacks

Neanderthal
. . . . . . . . . . ..
From: RuthieG@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 27, 2005
RE: RE: RE: RE: Ad Hominem Attacks

I vote for Applebee's with Nino. Their nachos supremos rock. RBG
. . . . . . . . . ..
...
. . . . . . . . . ..
From: BreyerBreyerPantsOnFire@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 27, 2005
RE: Consensus

Attached please find a 17-page Excel spreadsheet and accompanying PowerPoint presentation containing my thoughts on how to achieve consensus in this matter, while fixing the federal sentencing guidelines at the same time. Steve
. . . . . . . . . ..
From: NinoNoir@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 28, 2005
RE: RE: Consensus Activist meddlers.

Leave it to the legislatures to decide
. . . . . . . . . . ..
From: mailto:QueenBee@
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 28, 2005
RE: Majority Opinion

Actually, I think we should leave it to ME to decide and I think that for just this one dinner, under these very specific facts, and weighing all of the factors in a carefully calibrated balancing test that will never be applicable to any other set of facts ever again, we should go for appetizers at Bullfeathers, entrées at La Coline, then ice cream sundaes at Applebee's, but not the one in Chevy Chase; the one in Fairfax. Imperially yours, Sandy
. . . . . . . . . ..
...
. . . . . . . . . ..
From: Chiefy@ scotus.gov
To: mailto:Supremelist@
Date: May 29, 2005
RE: Assignments

I've tried to keep track of the voting in this matter, and believe the opinion writing can be assigned as it was in Smith v. City of Jackson, that is, we can handily dispose of this problem if Justice Stevens writes Parts I, II, and IV but not III, and Justice Scalia concurs only in part, and Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas write separate concurrences, and I remain at home. If that is acceptable to everyone, please advise.