Supreme-Court-opinions-we’d-like-to-see Dept.

An obscene obscenity ruling, per The Onion.

An imaginary Justice Ginsburg, per The Onion:

In short, freedom of speech means the freedom of f*cking speech, you ignorant c*cks&ckers.

See also Justice Breyer’s sizzling concurrence.

If only!

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

5 thoughts on “Supreme-Court-opinions-we’d-like-to-see Dept.”

  1. I don't know, I've always thought, "What part of "no law" don't you understand?" got to the point. A five word opinion…

  2. Glad to see that you have reconsidered your position on the Citizens United decision, Mark!

  3. A seven word opinion… I keep resolving not to comment before my morning tea, problem is, I don't remember that resolution before my morning tea…

  4. The only point that “What part of “no law” don’t you understand?” makes is that the person who asks it is ignorant. There are numerous exceptions to freedom of speech that no one would deny; there is no such thing as a First Amendment-absolutist, no matter how many people claim to be one. No one, absolutist or otherwise, believes that the government may not prohibit speech that consists of threatening to kill a specific person, conspiring to commit a crime, offering a bribe (other than a campaign contribution), engaging in perjury, treason, or false advertising, or falsely shouting fire in a theater with the intent to cause a panic.

    The larger point is that anyone who claim to be a strict constructionist or a follower of plain meaning is lying.

  5. Henry: ditto. The Supremes' balancing act came out wrong. There is an obvious compelling interest in preventing both cruelty to animals and the ethical desensitization by video of our youth (assuming they had ethics to begin with, of course).

    Meanwhile, somehow there's no Constitutional right to dance naked?

    Hmm. What is wrong with this picture? Oh that's right, it's the difference between sex (bad) and violence (merely regrettable).

    More women on the Court, please. (Who do I have to b— around here … ?)

Comments are closed.