Be Careful How You Represent Yourself!

[MahlerGrooves]

I think he was right not to reconcile two decisions he made.  It was a baited question.

And I like that he went no further regarding the conferences than anyone has already.  He preserved some mystery there.

Well, on the latter, I think he could have at least thrown us a bone--a funny story or something.  And that's why I asked about the Q&A--I was the one who submitted the question about Raich and Lopez.  I was genuinely curious about what he would say, and I was disappointed when he didn't answer. 

It was a good question, but I knew he wasn't going to answer.  He did something similar in Philly. 

Wanna PM me with what school you go to?  I may have met you and not known it!

[dashrashi]

I think he was right not to reconcile two decisions he made.  It was a baited question.

And I like that he went no further regarding the conferences than anyone has already.  He preserved some mystery there.

Well, on the latter, I think he could have at least thrown us a bone--a funny story or something.  And that's why I asked about the Q&A--I was the one who submitted the question about Raich and Lopez.  I was genuinely curious about what he would say, and I was disappointed when he didn't answer. 

Can't answer. Intellectually bankrupt. No actual overarching theory, only results he'd like to see, like the rest of the judiciary.

/legal realist.

[SASS]

I am amazed at how little some people know about social grace . . . How embarrassing. I can't stand Scalia but the man still deserves respect when he is speaking! Any speaker at an event like this does. Unfortunately, this gives a bad impression of SMU, whether fair or not.

[Private David Lewis]

I think he was right not to reconcile two decisions he made.  It was a baited question.

And I like that he went no further regarding the conferences than anyone has already.  He preserved some mystery there.

Well, on the latter, I think he could have at least thrown us a bone--a funny story or something.  And that's why I asked about the Q&A--I was the one who submitted the question about Raich and Lopez.  I was genuinely curious about what he would say, and I was disappointed when he didn't answer. 

Can't answer. Intellectually bankrupt. No actual overarching theory, only results he'd like to see, like the rest of the judiciary.

/legal realist.

Well he answered it in his Raich concurrence.  And I imagine he could answer.  I just wanted to see if his answer would be the same one as was in his opinion. 

[SASS]

OMG! Did someone actually ask him that! Wow.

[MahlerGrooves]

Wow.  That's just inappropriate.  Funny as hell, but inappropriate.

In Philly, he wouldn't answer a question about whether or not he has ever made an attorney cry during oral arguments.  That would have been a fun one too!

[MahlerGrooves]

Wow.  That's just inappropriate.  Funny as hell, but inappropriate.

not suitable for polite company, in my not-so-humble (why lie?) opinion.

go study.

LOL.  Okok!

[MahlerGrooves]

LOL.  Okok!

and take your little friend with you. 

(because she should go study too, not because i'm trying to get rid of her or anything.)

Hehe.  Ok!  Does it get better after 1st semester?  After 1L?

[MahlerGrooves]

She's right.  I did go skiing on Friday.  And was generally lazy yesterday.

[MahlerGrooves]

I feel a little unwanted... sigh

And ive been studying significantly more than MG    I deserve breaks

okay then, you're allowed to be here during breaks.  mahler on the other hand has to study 16 hours a day for the next few weeks without breaks (lsd, bathroom or otherwise).

Weak.  Better go buy diapers then.