I have to admit, I find it more than a little disturbing that a sitting Supreme Court justice is voicing his discomfort with “rights.” I think what he’s trying to express is his perception that we’re a litigious society and his frustration with that. And that’s a fair frustration, though I think it’s often overstated. But, our government’s most important role is to protect our inherent rights. So, WTF, Justice Thomas? If you’re uncomfortable with that, then I suggest you get your ass off of the bench and find a different path.
This one sounds nice to me.
life and puppies 
Ok, this post has not gone over well…Moving on…
I actually saw this headline yesterday and went back to go read it, but never did, until you pointed it out, too.
What a generally weird appearance by Justice T. What I took away from some of those comments is that he seems to think that society generally is getting confused, or overreaching, about what it means to have a “right.” I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that – people in all ends of the political spectrum seem to attach the word “right” to something that really isn’t. But Justice T., that is exactly what your job is – to figure out what the Constitution says is a “right”! And boy, he just really doesn’t seem to be enjoying life very much. I imagine he feels like he can’t retire, either.
I did skip right over the Supreme Court article, of course, to read that one about the law firms. Those people are going to take a year off and NEVER GO BACK after having a life.
Yeah, I totally agree that that’s what he was trying to say. But at an event dedicated to the Bill of Rights, it seems it was a bit out in left field. And he certainly does seem to be a very morose man, as he stated. The article, more than anything I think, painted him as unprepared for the talk. The Dormant Commerce Clause? What the hell? Speaking of the DCC, have you been following this diploma privilege case? I’m trying to wrap my mind around how the guy has standing and how there’s a remedy available. Hmm. Must research.
Right. I should definitely be researching that when I have my first supreme court argument Thursday. Ugh. I want $80k to travel the world.
Also, I think I stole my salad from Sentry last night. Well, I’m pretty sure I did. I was using the self-checkout and when it came time to weigh my salad, it told me to wait for a checker. Or, it said, remove the item. So I waited a bit and then removed the salad. Then I thought, that doesn’t make sense so I started to put it back on the scale when a checker came over and said, “Ma’am, you need to remove that. Yeah, there you go.” So, I just paid for the other stuff and left. Hmm. I bet that was like a ridiculous $7 salad or something. I feel a little guilty, but not too much. More confused. Thanks for letting me get that out.
Ha! That DCC mention was hilarious – perhaps he’s not so much in touch with the way the population at large thinks (or, I guess, what they think about). Those justices get so far removed.
That diploma privilege case – egads! In truth, I’m not sure I remember learning a lot of WI law in law school. Then again, I don’t remember learning certain things generally in law school. But seriously, what is the remedy? WI certainly isn’t just going to let everyone join the bar, so that guy wins nothing other than beating this alleged “discrimination.” Please.
Calling the cops!
Agreed. And I’m not really sure why teaching Wisconsin law necessarily matters. Can’t the rational basis just be the Supreme Court feels more comfortable with the curriculum at Wisco and Marquette? That seems rational. The court doesn’t have time, or the ability, to learn about every law school, and it has some say in what Wisco and Marquette teach so there’s the diploma privilege. For all else, take the gd bar. It’s not like Wisco is preventing peeps from practicing here. Does anyone fail the Wisco bar? Anyway, I totally don’t get the remedy. He seems to think other law students would get diploma privilege, but it seems way more likely they’d just get rid of diploma priv and make everyone take the bar. And at oral argument, he said he thought it’d be ok if Wisco, instead of making out-of-state law students take the bar, make them take “a course” in Wisconsin law. What? That would be better than the bar? How so?
I saw that article yesteray– I loved how the article said something like, “Only corporate law managers would be surprised that so many people want to be paid not to work there” that was brilliant.
Boy, my typing has gotten bad… yesterday.