pageok
pageok
pageok
Turducken

makes its first appearance in a published court opinion. For more on this beast, see here. For links to the other opinions in the case, see here. For my earlier thoughts on why the panel decision was mistaken, see here. I might have more after I read the opinion related to denial of rehearing en banc, and reread the panel opinion.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Government Investigations:
  2. Turducken
David Schwartz (mail):
I'll say the same thing I said last time: This case is not about voluntary anything. It's about the Federal Government requiring you to authorize third parties to release information they otherwise would in fact keep confidential as a condition of Federal employment.

You wrote:

Or say you're a manager in some small government department, and you're thinking of hiring someone; but you've heard that he might have some problems, so you ask people who know him the same sorts of questions. Pretty clearly constitutional, I would have thought. There's no Fourth Amendment problem because there's no search for constitutional purposes. (Questioning isn't a search.) There's no Self-Incrimination Clause problem because you aren't compelling anyone to incriminate himself. There's no restraint on anyone's liberty because you aren't forcing anyone to say something.
Right, and nobody disagrees with that. Now suppose you told the guy that he seem kind of squirrely to you and you had a bad feeling about him. So you want him to sign a statement authorizing and and all third-parties to release any and all medical, financial, or other personal data on him. And if he doesn't sign it, he'll be deemed to have resigned.

Still no problem?
6.4.2009 6:36pm
PabloF:
How did I know That Kozinski would be involved?
6.4.2009 7:15pm
trotsky (mail):
Funny, the opinion says "turducken" like it's a bad thing.
6.4.2009 7:47pm
Turducken is awesome.:
It really is.
6.4.2009 7:49pm
trotsky (mail):
Do-it-yourself instructions are here. I confess I've never attempted a recipe that required the use of "one small hammer."
6.4.2009 9:10pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
I'm waiting for an opinion that mentions whole stuffed camel, which I assume hasn't happened yet.
6.5.2009 2:15am
Sid the warmonger (mail) (www):
It may not make it as a legal term, but it will always have a loyal fan base in the culinary world.

If you are ever in South Louisiana, give it a try.
6.5.2009 10:08am
Thales (mail) (www):
There's some company that ships Turduckens nationwide. I think it was profiled in National Geographic a few years ago.
6.5.2009 11:21am
Turducken lover:
There are several companies that ship Turduckens. I live in Nevada and we order one every year for the holidays.
6.5.2009 12:46pm
SG:
I've made turducken twice. It takes pretty much a full day to prepare if you're using the carcasses to make the stock for the various stuffings, plus 18 hours of cooking time.

It's a *lot* of food. You need a big crowd to make it worthwhile.
6.5.2009 1:48pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

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.