Justice Scalia Dissents in Court's Opinion that Latest Indiana Jones Movie was Enjoyable

Starting with Warren Burger's tenure as Chief Justice in 1969, the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court have made it a point to set aside at least one day a month for movie night. The last screening, which was held at Justice Anthony Kennedy's residence, featured Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the latest installment in director Steven Spielberg's highly acclaimed franchise. After figuring out the seating arrangement and making sufficient pop corn, the gang was ready to begin watching.

"It took a while to get started - Ruth [Ginsberg] kept complaining about the low volume and John [Roberts] and Stephen [Breyer] wouldn't stop bickering over who actually called 'fives' on the recliner - but once things got settled I think we had a quite enjoyable viewing," remarked Justice David Souter. "Though the movie was long and not as good as Temple of Doom or Raiders of the Lost Ark, I think I can confidently express the majority's opinion that the film was a lot of fun."

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull takes place during the Cold War where Soviet agents tail Professor Jones in the hopes he will decipher an encoded message brought to him by a young man named Mutt Williams. The contents of the message bring Indiana and Mutt to Peru where they find a supernatural skull that, if it falls into the wrong hands, could spell doom for the West if not the world.

"After we finished watching the movie, we talked about our thoughts on the film," stated Justice Souter. "Almost everyone in Anthony [Kennedy]'s living room was in agreement that what we just watched was action-packed, entertaining and a great escape from the tedious legal stuff we have to do all the time."

Vigorously dissenting from the Court's view that the latest Indiana Jones movie was enjoyable, Justice Antonin Scalia passionately declared that he could not see how anyone in their right mind, especially if they were fans of the original movies, could support Spielberg's "blasphemy."

"As I wrote in Lawrence v. Texas, our great nation's history and traditions must necessarily inform the Court's opinions," stated Scalia via telephone as he prepared to fly down to Duke University School of Law to judge its annual Dean's Cup competition. "Today's majority opinion that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is pleasant blatantly flouts this principle by unabashedly praising a film that egregiously deviates from the series' original meaning and purpose. I therefore vehemently dissent."

Scalia, a self-avowed movie originalist, points to the fact that the latest incarnation of Indiana Jones is incoherent, contrived and full of elements that are completely inimical to the essence of the franchise.

"Sure the earlier movies could be occasionally far-fetched but the films were so well done that these aspects could easily be forgiven," related Scalia. "But monkeys teaching humans to swing from trees, skulls with alien powers, man-eating ants and surviving nuclear blasts in a refrigerator; these things are so contrary to the fundamental tenets of Indiana Jones that I am ashamed to be part of a group that somehow thinks this perversion is acceptable."

This isn't the first time Justice Scalia has emphatically disagreed with his colleagues concerning movie preferences. As seen in his dissenting opinions in Godfather III, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and The Matrix Revolutions, Scalia often takes offense to sequels that diverge substantially from what made the initial movie or movies great.

"The other guys can heap all the encomia they want on it but nothing they say will convince me that The Phantom Menace was a respectable film," declared Scalia in an earlier opinion. "All the special effects in the world cannot erase a lack of character development, poor acting and the presence of a supremely annoying lizard-like creature. [Director George] Lucas, by making the movie as he did, and the Court, by praising it, totally ignore the greatness of the original trilogy and therefore lay waste to the doctrine of stare wars decisis."

Justice Souter, who authored the Court's majority opinion in the Indiana Jones decision, counters that Scalia's view of movie interpretation is flawed.

"Indiana Jones, like other series, needs to be viewed as a living, breathing franchise, not a static piece of cinematography," argued Souter. "Movies should be judged according to the mores of the time not necessarily by what what worked ten, thirty or fifty years ago. Hopefully by understanding this Justice Scalia will be able to pull that giant stick out of his textualist behind and thus not be so irritable every time he comes over for movie night."

Lawyers Dream About What They’ll Do When Released from the Firm

Sitting in the attorney lounge during a brief break from their assignments, lawyers at Non, Stoppe & Billings in New York began fantasizing about what they’ll each do after they’re released from the firm. According to reports, the talk was so emotional that even the most hardened of the men sitting on the plush, leather B&B Italia couches could not hold back their tears.

“The first thing I’m gonna do when I get outta here is spend quality time with my kid,” said a forlorn Hugh Larson, a 3rd year tax associate. “Since Joey was born I’ve really only seen him on the occasional weekend or when my old lady brings him by the office for visitation.”

Reginald McMahan, a 2nd year in corporate, followed Larson stating that he too dreams about life on the outside and was anxious to return to “normal living.”

“What I miss the most is eating a nice home-cooked dinner with my girlfriend in our kitchen,” remarked McMahan. “The day I am done eating SeamlessWeb sushi at my desk is the day I am truly a free man.”

Others in the discussion expressed eager hopes of one day attending events that started before 8:00 p.m., sleeping without being woken by their Blackberries and never again interviewing snotty prospective summer associates.

Sources who participated in the break-time conversation report that after talking about what they’ll do upon obtaining freedom the men switched to the topic of what each attorney was "in for."

Tax associate Hugh Larson remembered the responses being varied: “A 1st year corporate associate said he was in for the debt repayment, a 3rd year in bankruptcy mentioned that he was locked up because he wanted to fulfill family expectations and a third associate said he gave up his freedom to make some connections in the financial world.”

Regardless of what got them put into Non Stoppe, a majority of the wistful lawyers in the attorney lounge agreed that they wanted to be released shortly. Most hoped only to serve three to five years before escaping firm life for an in-house position or a career totally unrelated to the practice of law.

Some though remain longer with a select few serving near life sentences. These wizened veterans of the firm generally agree that lawyering isn’t always wonderful but also point out that the alternative, life on the outside, isn’t something everyone can handle.

“I recall one partner who was at the firm for fifteen years,” recollected Terry "Red" Spring, a senior partner who had been in for as long as anyone could remember. “After more than a decade he decided to change course and work for a small non-profit that fought for undocumented immigrants. Unfortunately, the lack of rules and structure was too shocking and the poor bastard was found a few weeks later hanging lifeless from a makeshift noose in his apartment. People have to remember that freedom just isn’t for everyone.”

President Obama Declares War on Error

In his inauguration speech in front of an estimated crown of two million, President Barack Obama highlighted a number of key points ranging from America's racial progress to the need for sacrifice in the face of a severe economic downturn. In addition, Obama emphasized that he would personally oversee his administration's efforts to combat the omnipresent and extremely dangerous threat of error.

"My fellow Americans, we are indeed going through troubling times," remarked the new American president. "We are in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and the Middle East is in turmoil. But perhaps the greatest and gravest threat against our country is that of mistakes, oversights, miscalculations and other forms of blundering."

Reiterating a point often made on the campaign trail, Obama underscored that under the Bush Administration the country was poorly defended from error.

"Unfortunately, President Bush did not adequately protect the American people from errorism during his tenure," claimed the current President. "The incompetency and miscues during Bush's eight years were tremendous and as your new president I will do all I can to reverse previous failures and combat this insidious threat."

Obama specifically pointed to the Iraq war and the countless mistakes he believes are associated with that endeavor.

"The costly and bloody war in Iraq clearly demonstrates that the previous administration's inability to guard this beloved country against the harmful nature of error," stated President Obama, pausing to allow the receptive crowd's applause. "From its mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to the incorrect hypothesis that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators, the Bush team demonstrated that it did not take the errorist threat seriously."

After the speech, Obama administration officials also pointed out that Bush unsuccessfully safeguarded the country from well known errorists, actually allowing some of the worst offenders to operate from within the administration.

"In addition to not protecting Americans from serious miscalculations, for example with sub-prime lending, Bush ardently defended prominent homegrown errorists who actually worked in many important areas of the government," said Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff. "Jay Bybee, author of the terror memos; Alberto Gonzalez, the disgraced formed Attorney General; Dick Cheney, a vice president with an flawed view of presidential power. All of these men not only committed heinous acts of error but did so with Bush's blessing. Barack Obama will not let the American people down like that."

President Obama has propsed a number of specific proposals to counteract what he sees as Bush's deleterious mistakes.

"As President, I will do everything in my power to protect the American people from errorism," emphasized Obama towards the end of his inaugural address. "Not only do I plan to appoint an Error Czar but I will also form and generously fund the Bureaus of Non-Political Analysis, Proper Fact Gathering, Constitutional Adherence and Double Checking."

Critics of the new president's plan claim that War on Error is so broadly defined that it will necessarily result in years of expensive and ineffective government action.

"I agree that error must be dealt with but the bigger danger is that the president, by declaring war against such an amorphous concept, has created a indefinite, costly and likely unproductive commitment," remarked Mitch McConnell, R-KY and the House Minority Leader. "I worry that President Obama will use this conflict to justify a host of initiatives that will grow the size of government, impinge on our liberties and, in the end, do little to actually lessen errorism."

Obama's Chief of Staff responded, saying that McConnell can't be trusted, especially considering his background.

"McConnell and critics like him are complete hypocrites in that they are errorist sympathizers if not errorists themselves," said a defiant Emmanuel. "These people have been wrong so many times on so many issues that I am hard pressed to think of more radical proponents of error."

Obama concurred, adding: "On the errorism issue it's simple; either you're with us or against us. There are no shades of gray. There will be no hesitation in our response. Therefore, to those who are tempted to commit acts of error we say: bring em' on."

Law Student Won't Sleep With Guy Even Considering Facts in Light Most Favorable to Petitioner

During last Thursday's bar review 3L Natasha Phillips was enjoying a glass of red wine when she was approached by her slightly inebriated classmate Louis Liptak. Liptak wasted no time hitting on the single Phillips, telling her that she "looked hot tonight" and inquiring about her plans for later that evening. Phillips quickly rebuffed Liptak, citing considerable evidence for why she was not interested in her fellow law student's advances.

After pondering the rejection, Liptak decided to appeal Phillips' decision, strongly urging that she reconsider.

"C'mon baby think about," a slightly slurring Liptak was reported to have said. "We both need to unwind so lets go back to my place. I've got some great Bordeaux not to mention some kickass romantic comedies on DVD."

Phillips, who had broken up with her boyfriend at the end of 2L year, admittedly was feeling lonely as of late and was in need of male companionship. As a result, she re-evaluated Liptak's offer.

"Considering this was an issue of second impression, I looked at the appeal in the light most favorable to the party petitioning for hooking up," remarked Phillips. "Despite the standard of review, I still could not in good conscious go home with that guy."

According to the 3L she really did try to take into account her classmate's best qualities but she couldn't find much to support an outcome other than rejection.

"I truly tried to consider Lou's best characteristics including that he was decently good looking and wasn't one of those over-intense gunners," insisted Phillips. "But after a thorough analysis I, as a fact finder, could not see enough of a reason to go home him."

Despite Phillips' best efforts to rationalize spending a night with Liptak in order to quench her sexual desires, the petitioner's negative attributes conclusively overshadowed any favorable characteristics.

"The whole night Lou did not stop talking about law school, could not help conspicuously staring into my cleavage and when he danced it looked like he had cerebral palsy or something," related Phillips, shaking her head. "And I am pretty sure that when he opened his wallet to pay for a drink I spotted at least 3 unhidden condoms. What a creep."

After the internal deliberation, Phillips ruled on Liptak's appeal, telling her fellow 3L that she had decided to affirm her initial rejection.

"I had to give considerable weight to my initial impression," said Phillips, describing the though process that led to her holding. "Besides a number of my girlfriends quickly filed concurring negative opinions of Lou which helped me realize that I had to rebuff him."

Despite the setbacks, Liptak plans to continue fighting.

"Years of experience have taught me that initially weak cases become much stronger with every additional drink consumed," remarked Liptak. "In other words, the drunker a girl gets the more likely it is that she will find error with an initial decision not to sleep with me."

The 3L continued: "Therefore, I won't give up until it's clear Natasha is done drinking. Hopefully tequila can do for me what persuasive oral advocacy and stubborn insistence could not."

Partner Gives Associate Detailed Comments on Recently Completed Sex Act

Revisions, comments and fine-tuning are very important in the legal profession. For young and mid-level associates in particular, such constructive feedback is integral for helping these relatively inexperienced lawyers learn their craft and achieve optimal results.

For this reason senior litigation partner Kyle Jarvis recently decided to give Carly Macintosh, a 4th year associate with whom he has just begun carrying on a torrid affair, some detailed feedback with regards to a recently completed sex act. The fornication at issue, which occurred in Jarvis’ corner office overlooking Central Park, was the couple’s first sexual experience of the newly minted tryst.

“Carly produced some tremendous work product the other night,” affirmed Jarvis, raising his eyebrows for emphasis. “Yet there is always room for improvement so, as someone who is a mentor by nature, I thought it best to relay to this associate how she could improve her performance.”

The senior partner decided to write Macintosh a memorandum detailing the ways that the young lawyer could augment her results. The memo emphasized the associate’s various commendable attributes but underscored that she could significantly enhance overall execution by “dressing up in costume, perhaps as a Catholic high school girl, cheerleader or nurse.” Jarvis’ suggestions also included bringing in toys, role playing and letting him "try it in the butt."

After receiving the feedback, Macintosh incorporated the partner’s comments into her repertoire that very evening as the lovers engaged in multiple sessions of steamy coitus in the firm’s attorney lounge. Jarvis was very pleased with the outcome but remarked that in the legal world achieving a perfectly desirable end result takes time.

“Carly was unquestionably amazing last night, even better than she was that first time back in my office,” stated Jarvis. “Just because she started doing that thing with her tongue, however, doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop riding her – you know, to see if she can further develop her skills.”

Similar to how he helps prepare mid-levels who will soon conduct depositions, Jarvis recorded his and Macintosh’s latest love-making escapade and reviewed the tape with her to demonstrate how the young associate can become even better. Stopping the hi-definition footage at various key points, the litigation partner indicated that Macintosh forgot to cup his balls during fellatio, needed to play with herself more often and must control the volume of her moaning in order not to alert the firm’s custodial staff.

Macintosh has been very receptive to the critiques, saying that Jarvis has really opened her eyes to how she can improve her output.

“The feedback was really constructive,” remarked the 4th year associate. “By watching the video and hearing Kyle [Jarvis]’s thoughts I realized that I was settling for the same couple of positions not to mention that most of my dirty talk was in the passive voice.”

According to Jarvis, as Macintosh incorporates his pointers, each revised version of copulation is better than the next .

“I am really glad that I could mentor Carly and expose her to wisdom that I've learned through decades of experience,” said Jarvis. “My aim as a partner is to enable young lawyers to produce the best product possible and I will be all over Carly and associates like her until that goal is achieved.”

3L Hires Paralegal to Help Him Complete Final Semester

In order to help him finish his last semester at Duke University School of Law with greater ease, third year student Jesse Colon has decided to hire a paralegal, sources report.

“As I enter the second semester of 3L year my ambition is do as little as possible while still passing,” admitted Colon. “Having Campbell to assist me will go a long way towards achieving this goal.”

The 3L was referring to Campbell Smith, a recent Cornell graduate who has expressed interest in eventually attending law school. According to Smith, Colon was able to convince her to take the job, in part, because he promised her real world legal education experience.

“I’ve been told by friends and family that it’s best to take a year or two off before beginning law school,” remarked Colon. “So I decided to make the most of my time by accepting employment at a place where I eventually would like to end up. Not only will I make decent money but I should learn a lot.”

Colon has tasked his paralegal with a number of assignments such as taking notes for him in class, typing up his Negotiations journals, flagging important cases for his seminar’s required final paper and getting him coffee from the Refectory, the law school’s cafeteria. The 3L is extremely excited to have Smith’s help but has mentioned that he has to be wary of certain pitfalls.

“As Campbell’s employer I have to be concerned with a range of ethical issues,” said Colon. “As mentioned in the Model Rules, it is imperative that I give my paralegal proper supervision and educate her about relevant ethical requirements in order prevent any possibility for the unauthorized practice of law school.”

Colon added: “This responsibility means that while I won’t let her take my exams for me I definitely plan to have her compile and synthesize all my friends’ outlines to make the 2 or 3 days I actually decide to study for finals that much easier.”

Though the recent college grad was initially quite excited to take on the paralegal position she has soured on the job partially due to the substantial time commitment.

“I didn’t realize that when I agreed to work for Jesse I would essentially be dedicating my whole life to the job,” reported an extremely frustrated Campbell. “He makes me work on evenings and weekend, often at strange hours. Sure I get paid overtime but all the money in the world doesn’t make up for the fact that I’m often taking a taxi home at two in the morning after reading through and notating countless pages of dense Securities Regulation cases.”

Almost as bad as the hours, claims Campbell, is the way the 3L treats her.

“I think I’d be able to better deal with the long days if Jesse didn’t act so disrespectfully,” claimed the paralegal. “He never says ‘thank you’ and always reacts with indignity if I don’t finish some impossibly long assignment on time. What’s worse is that after a few months I probably know many of the legal issues as well if not better than he does but not once has he asked for my opinion on a matter. What a dickwad.”

The regrettable result of Smith’s experience is a profoundly decreased desire to attend law school and work in the legal profession.

“I’m gonna stick it out at least until the end of the semester but I must admit that I’m burned out and disillusioned,” stated Smith. “If this is what the law school world is like - tons of work and asshole classmates – then I don’t want any part of it. Then again if I had my own paralegal maybe things wouldn't be so bad."