![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
OK, from Sarah, this is too snarky to not link to it:
http://www.despair.com
I believe I will order a few of these posters. I especially loved
http://www.despair.com/limitations.html
http://www.despair.com/ambition.html
http://www.despair.com/success.html
http://www.despair.com/gettowork.html
And, speaking of demotivation:
look at blazerrose's fic
bast's Serena stories
Later Edit:
bear,
kaylarudbek,
gypsum or anybody else who might know:
I was under the impression that judges (especially Supremes) are not allowed to talk in public about decisions they have made or been part of. The rationale for this is that if they have anything to say, they have ample opportunity to do so in their published decisions. They can write anything they want, and their opinions have legal weight as binding precedent, or strong dissent that may some day be adopted as a common law rule, or even legally persuasive obiter dicta. Talking about it after the fact may give undue weight to their comments, because they're Exalted Judges, and people may take their off-the-cuff remarks very seriously even though they have absolutely no legal significance.
Is this so, or is that only the case in Canada? And if it's true for the US... what's up with Justice Scalia?
Scalia Ridicules Court's Gay Sex Ruling
Hell, even if it's not true, what's up with Scalia? Who peed in his Wheaties?
http://www.despair.com
I believe I will order a few of these posters. I especially loved
http://www.despair.com/limitations.html
http://www.despair.com/ambition.html
http://www.despair.com/success.html
http://www.despair.com/gettowork.html
And, speaking of demotivation:
- Property
Heffron v. Imperial Parking CoBird v. Town of Fort FrancesAttorney-General of Canada v. Brock- Introduction to Real Property
- Adoption of English Real Property Law in Ontario
- 221-231 Mossman text
- ADR
- Interview: Theory
Communications: Theory
- Interview: Theory
- call Legal Aid re. wills and who can perform marriages
- parking ticket
- finish belt and boots for Justin's costume
make appointment with GyneGuy- learn two choir songs
write out interrupting thing for Chris
Later Edit:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I was under the impression that judges (especially Supremes) are not allowed to talk in public about decisions they have made or been part of. The rationale for this is that if they have anything to say, they have ample opportunity to do so in their published decisions. They can write anything they want, and their opinions have legal weight as binding precedent, or strong dissent that may some day be adopted as a common law rule, or even legally persuasive obiter dicta. Talking about it after the fact may give undue weight to their comments, because they're Exalted Judges, and people may take their off-the-cuff remarks very seriously even though they have absolutely no legal significance.
Is this so, or is that only the case in Canada? And if it's true for the US... what's up with Justice Scalia?
Scalia Ridicules Court's Gay Sex Ruling
Hell, even if it's not true, what's up with Scalia? Who peed in his Wheaties?
no subject
Date: 2003-10-24 06:56 am (UTC)::is vastly amused::