The Volokh Conspiracy

Onion News Network on Baze v. Rees:
The Supreme Court's April death penalty decision in Baze v. Rees is old news by now, but I believe this coverage from the Onion News Network is relatively new. (Warning: As you might guess with a humorous video about the death penalty, this may be a bit off color to some viewers. If you don't like the Onion, you may not like this.)

Thanks to commenter "E" for the link.
krs:
I'm a big fan of the "trend towards the Roberts Court being less strictly constitutional and more strictly awesome."
6.23.2008 6:39pm
krs:
My favorite part is the shot of the transcript with the Judge Dredd references.
6.23.2008 6:40pm
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
Yeah, that shot of the transcript was awesome
6.23.2008 6:43pm
E:
You're welcome! :)
6.23.2008 7:02pm
George Weiss (mail) (www):
ha ha

-ralph baze
6.23.2008 7:12pm
krs:
The illustrations are also quite well done. The attention to detail in this is strikingly good for "law humor."
6.23.2008 7:23pm
Jim at FSU (mail):
That was above average for the onion these days.

Strictly awesome indeed.
6.23.2008 7:42pm
Jim at FSU (mail):
Hahaha, oh wow. American students rank below african children in marksmanship, machete use and mine clearing skills.

Moar.
6.23.2008 7:50pm
wm13:
Interesting. As a lawyer, I don't find that sort of humor, which doesn't reflect any actual understanding of the legal issues, very funny. Although a similar outsider perspective on some other discipline, like philosophy or poli sci, of which I know nothing, I might find amusing.

Now Mark Tushnet's "Dia-Tribe," that was funny.
6.23.2008 8:06pm
Eli Rabett (www):
wm13, that's why we first kill execute the lawyers
6.23.2008 8:33pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Truly excellent, although they should have explored how Scalia's textualism and Thomas' originalism will play a role in a Court that has become "totally awesome." I think that both would be more consistent with total awesomeness than would be detailed resort to state decisis, but it is a point that merits mention.
6.23.2008 8:48pm
JB:
Scalia wants to protect the awesomeness of the Constitution from liberal activist retcons; Thomas believes that the Founding Fathers are the height of awesomeness and none of the remakes compare.
6.23.2008 8:56pm
Jacob Berlove:
One real fact supporting the Onion's claim is the Chief's citation of the widely respected legal authority Bob Dylan on page 4 of his Sprint dissent.
6.23.2008 9:03pm
The Cabbage (mail):
"I am the... I am... Wait. Where am I?"
- Justice Douglas
6.23.2008 10:13pm
JRD (mail):
" . . . a bit off color to some viewers"? As an LA Times reporter, I find that video both sexist and pornographic.
6.24.2008 1:18am
SEW (mail):
too cool! I liked the drawings done by each of the judges.

And the captions running along the bottom were great.
6.24.2008 11:02am
Scipio79:
Scalia is truly shaboo
(def. #4)
6.24.2008 7:07pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]

Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.

As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")

Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.

And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.

Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.

Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.

And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.