July 21, 2008
Louisiana seeks rehearing in Kennedy child rape case (with some notable lawyers helping out)
As detailed in this SCOTUSblog post, "Louisiana on Monday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling a month ago striking down the death penalty for the crime of child rape." Here are more particulars:
The rehearing petition, citing an omission in the Court’s opinion of any mention of a federal law on that issue, was filed late Monday afternoon. The petition in Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343) can be found here.
Noting that the Court “almost never grants petitions for rehearing,” the state’s filing said this was “the rare exception.” It cited an 1875 ruling (Ambler v. Whipple), saying that an omission “material to the decision of the case” makes “a strong appeal for reargument.”
The petition said that either the rehearing should be granted, or the Court should “first seek the views” of the U.S. Solicitor General. Earlier, after the discovery of the omitted statute from the Court’s opinion, the Solicitor General’s office said that, if a rehearing plea were filed, it would examine it and “consider what steps are appropriate.”
Under the Court’s rules, a rehearing petition is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court “at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.” The other side in a case is not allowed to file a response, unless the Court specifically asks it to do so. The Court’s rules add that, unless there are “extraordinary circumstances,” rehearing will not be granted unless a response is first requested.
I found particularly notable two of the names on the rehearing petition: Georgetown University Law Professors Viet Dinh and Neal Katyal. I think it is fair to describe Professor Dinh as a prominent conservative legal star and Professor Katyal as a prominent liberal legal star. I also found notable the final footnote in the rehearing petition, which indicates that the Supreme Court has granted post-ruling rehearing petitions in at least 22 prior cases.
I am pleased that Louisiana and Governor Jindal has now put the ball back into the Supremes' Court. I still suspect that the five Justices in the Kennedy majority won't want to open this case back up, but I am glad that they were directly asked.
Some related recent posts:
UPDATE: Adam Liptak has this effective New York Times article covering the filing.
July 21, 2008 at 08:11 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Louisiana seeks rehearing in Kennedy child rape case (with some notable lawyers helping out):
» Louisiana Asks for Kennedy Rehearing from Sex Crimes
Maybe it was Berman challenging Governor Jindal to keep to his word, but whatever the cause, Louisiana filed a motion for rehearing today in Kennedy. SCOTUSBlog has the details and the motion. I'm still in light-blogging mode as I try [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 21, 2008 8:40:08 PM
Tracked on Sep 17, 2009 12:45:48 PM
I was beginning to think that the governor of Louisiana was pro-child rape. Now that he did this, I know that he is tough on crime.
Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 21, 2008 10:21:45 PM
Withering critique on the merits of the matter, S.cotus. I don't see how any of those reactionary rehearing proponents, like Prof. Katyal, could fail to be persuaded.
Posted by: NYC | Jul 21, 2008 11:49:21 PM
S.cotus: you beat me to it.
But because the supreme court (or at least those who joined the Kennedy majority) have been labeled "pro-child rape" and accused of supporting child rape and those who do it, I think the court will not only grant rehearing, but reverse itself. Mark my prediction. Unpopular decision, harsh insults to the court, and an allegedly overlooked (though irrelevant as I see it) legal fact will cause the rehearing petition to be quickly granted and the court will issue an opinion reversing it with only Ginsburg dissenting (beacuse we all know she loves child-rape).
Sad day for the 8th Amendment.
However, since I hate children, I am agnostic on the issue of executing child rapists. I like that it gives them the incentive to murder their kiddie rape victims. While I'm not in active support of child murder, consider my view of children on par with that of the late, great Bill Hicks. Kids are annnoying, I can't stand them, and if the choice is between a kid being murdered or a kid being raped, I'd much rather have the kid murdered. After all, a raped kid is presumed to become psychologically damaged and will grow up to either be a criminal or just incredibly whiny and annoying. So, like all the other people who support executing child rapists, I am unopposed to a law that encourages child murder (especially the murder of children who will be more annoying than the average kid).
Incidentally, insofar as the child rape victims are murdered, they won't be able to identify or testify against the persons who raped them. So more child rapists will go free, too. That I'm against, but everyone else would rather have a dozen child rapists go free in exchange for the ability to execute one of them. As long as it makes adults feel better at the expense of children, so be it. I really hate kids.
Posted by: bruce | Jul 22, 2008 12:21:43 AM
I find it in interesting that the petition relies largely on the Court's failure to address military law, but then itself omits any mention of the other dozen or so offenses under the UCMJ for which the death penalty is authorized -- only of which (premeditated murder) actually requires a person to have died as a result of the accused's crime.
Could this be because in its broader context the fact that courts-martial authorize the death penalty for child rapists is not so much evidence of a "national consensus" that it is appropriate, but rather a simple recognition of the unique nature of the military justice system?
Posted by: CWS | Jul 22, 2008 8:55:00 AM
The whole thing is beyond silly. First of all, if we were to look at the UCMJ as a whole and think that it had something to do with what American values were, we would conclude that
1) all pleas must be scrutinized by the trial judge in a long hearing;
2) even after a guilty plea, an appellate court must review the conviction and sentence;
3) whoever decided that someone should be prosecuted can change their mind afterwards, and reduce the sentence or vacate the conviction;
and (this is the big one)
4) the death penalty should NEVER be applied. The last military execution was 1961. The death penalty has been on the books ever since.
Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 9:48:04 AM
Of course, whether the UCMJ "reflects American values" is not the point. The point is that in updating the UCMJ just two years ago, Congress, i.e. the representatives of the entire American people, included a death penalty provision for child rape. Under the Court's legislature-counting approach to the 8th Amendment, that is undeniably relevant. Were there truly a "national consensus" against the death penalty for child rape, as the Court claims there is, surely the national legislature would not have so recently provided for it, even in the limited context of military prosecutions.
Disclaimer: while I believe it is constitutional, I am not a supporter of the death penalty for child rape. I also believe the Kennedy opinion is deeply dishonest, and I'm pleased to see that they'll now have to at least consider correcting this fundamental error in the opinion.
Posted by: NYC J.D. | Jul 22, 2008 10:01:58 AM
This ommission only affects the Court's alternative holding. Why is rehearing justified in that circumstance?
Posted by: Not the same | Jul 22, 2008 10:16:09 AM
I never could understand why the federal legislature’s approach to issues in 8th amendment jurisprudence made any difference. Congress is a creation of the Constitution (unlike state legislatures). Therefore, it is sort of circular to declare that where we use exogenous sources to ascertain the meaning of the constitution (which is argued for by all sides all the time), that we look to something that is, itself, a creation of the constitution.
Whatever the case, I am not losing too much sleep either way over this.
Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 10:20:26 AM
"I never could understand why the federal legislature’s approach to issues in 8th amendment jurisprudence made any difference."
Because the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in capital cases long ago ceased to have any connection with the Eighth Amendment.
Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Jul 22, 2008 10:45:25 AM
“Because the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in capital cases long ago ceased to have any connection with the Eighth Amendment.”
Isn’t a better explanation that those that advocated a narrow reading of the Eighth amendment were simply unable to make as well-crafted legal arguments as those arguing in favor of people facing death. Perhaps it is time that those arguing that the state should be able to kill more people consistent with the Eighth amendment simply retain better lawyers rather than blaming the court for their failures.
If they are unable to find good lawyers, they could seek to amend the constitution. However, Mr. Scheidegger, it seems that your point of view simply does not have the support necessary to amend the constitution. Therefore, in light of your inability to convince the court of your position (and unwillingness to find good lawyers), you might have to get used to the way our democratic republic works in the US.
Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 11:53:56 AM
Katyal is a bit of an opportunist. Before he hitched his wagon to the GTMO litigation, he advocated for the broadest definitions of substantive crimes (i.e. conspiracy) in order to put as many people in jail as possible.
Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 11:58:00 AM
What I find interesting is that Congress authorized the child rape death penalty for the UCMJ (in an obscure provision that almost no one was aware of), but did not authorize it for the federal civilian courts - where child rape prosecutions are far more common, and where the death penalty is not infrequently sought.
To me, this is not particularly convincing evidence of a national consensus for child rape. If anything, it shows the opposite - that Congress chose not to establish the death penalty in a court where it may actually be used.
Does anyone know:
(1) Whether capital sentencing under the UCMJ is similar to capital sentencing in civilian courts?
(2) Whether the UCMJ DP provision required any aggravating cirucumstances for the child rape DP?
Posted by: rn | Jul 22, 2008 12:33:57 PM
The person who calls himself the Supreme Court of the United States writes, "Isn’t a better explanation that those that advocated a narrow reading of the Eighth amendment were simply unable to make as well-crafted legal arguments as those arguing in favor of people facing death."
In light of the feedback I have received from a majority of the people who really are the Supreme Court of the United States, I would say that is not the better explanation.
Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Jul 22, 2008 12:52:30 PM
Odd that Louisiana did not state that this big statement by Congress in support of capital punishment for child rapists was included in a 200 plus long military appropriation bill passed while there are American troops fighting overseas.
I'm sure that they forgot to mention it.
Posted by: Zack | Jul 22, 2008 1:10:48 PM
Mr. Scheidegger, So what feedback did you get? You seem unwilling to convince the people that matter of your point.
Posted by: Sr.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 1:18:48 PM
Zack, as the rehearing petition points out, and as Ed Whelan notes over at Bench Memos, the 2006 capital child rape provision "was supported by a Department of Defense report that, among other things, discussed Louisiana’s child-rape law, was highlighted to Congress, and was implemented by an executive order and by amendments to the rules governing courts-martial."
Of course, this might all be immaterial if the Court would jettison its intellectually bankrupt "evolving standards of decency" jurisprudence, but that's not the world we live in.
Posted by: NYC J.D. | Jul 22, 2008 1:21:38 PM
RN, Let me answer your questions.
1. No. For one, each penalty needs to be decided by a panel, approved by the military judge, submitted to post-trial processing by the convening authority, then subject to an appeal as of right to a service court of appeal, then review by the CAAF is possible (I believe as of right as well). The actual execution must be personally approved by the president. Then habeas in a District Court is possible.
2. Yes. Under the caselaw, "specific aggravating circumstances must be identified to the sentencing authority.” Looking at the actual UCMJ provision, where the victim is under 12, no specific aggravating factor is required, but even I would say that this is aggravating enough.
Posted by: Sr.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 1:48:16 PM
"Isn’t a better explanation that those that advocated a narrow reading of the Eighth amendment were simply unable to make as well-crafted legal arguments as those arguing in favor of people facing death. Perhaps it is time that those arguing that the state should be able to kill more people consistent with the Eighth amendment simply retain better lawyers rather than blaming the court for their failures.
If they are unable to find good lawyers, they could seek to amend the constitution. However, Mr. Scheidegger, it seems that your point of view simply does not have the support necessary to amend the constitution. Therefore, in light of your inability to convince the court of your position (and unwillingness to find good lawyers), you might have to get used to the way our democratic republic works in the US."
Very funny. Remind me again the outcome of Baze v. Rees. Or perhaps I should remind you of popular opinion polls on support for the death penalty? We already have 12 executions this year with another 24 scheduled and probably more to come. Which part of this indicates that those in favor of an originalist interpretation of the 8th Amendment have trouble convincing people?
Admittedly, we're not as successful as we'd like to be. As the saying goes, it's impossible to reason people out of what they've never been reasoned into. But when we have Justice Stevens falling back on his experience being superior to that of Congress, 37 states, and a solid majority of the people; that doesn't exactly strike me as a solid footing in the 8th Amendment.
Posted by: realist | Jul 22, 2008 2:09:24 PM
Realist, Let me start with your last comment. “As the saying goes, it's impossible to reason people out of what they've never been reasoned into.” This is offensive. Lawyers are judged on their success. Not their excuses. Clients don’t want excuses. Your clients want to be able to kill people and you were unable to let them do that. You failed them. The court didn’t fail them. You did.
Clients want results. Your blaming of other people for your failures is unAmerican and not the act of a good lawyer. Take some personal responsibility.
I don’t have much use for popular opinion polls, because the people the responders are non-lawyers and don’t really have much to do with the way the country is run.
In Baze, it seems that Baze’s lawyers did not do a good enough job. However, Baze was written in such a way that lawyers for other states wishing to kill people will have to again prove that they are better lawyers than the lawyers for people that don’t wish to be killed.
Moreover, I don’t really see your point regarding the fact that states have killed people since Baze. In Baze and Kennedy, people were not arguing that state-killing was per se unconstitutional.
Posted by: Sr.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 2:16:43 PM
So I went back and actually read (1) The Louisiana rehearing petition and (2) The UCMJ provision enacted by Congress in 2006. It turns out that the case is even weaker than I had assumed.
For one thing, it is inaccurate to state that Congress "added" or "authorized" the DP for child rape in the UCMJ. As Louisiana admits, the UCMJ had long along allowed the DP for all rapes (child and adult). All the 2006 law did was reorganize the existing provisions. It did not change the substantive availability of the DP for any rape.
Another point: both before and after 2006, the UCMJ provision was plainly unconstitutional, as it allowed the death penalty for all rapes, child and adult. The latter has long been barred under Coker.
So, we have a provision that (1) doesn't make any substantive change to a DP provision that (2)is unconstitutional anyway, and that (3) has not been used in almost 50 years. Also, (4) the provision was so obscure that no one knew about it when the case was argued.
Does anyone really think that this UCMJ provision should prompt a rehearing of the case?
Posted by: rn | Jul 22, 2008 2:31:34 PM
Another amusing reply from S.cotus.
Amusing because you're the one talking about "the way our democratic republic works in the US" but as soon as I point out popular support for the death penalty, you immediately dismissed popular opinion with: "I don’t have much use for popular opinion polls, because the people the responders are non-lawyers and don’t really have much to do with the way the country is run." Apparently, your idea of "democratic republic" is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The text of the 8th Amendment has not changed for more than 200 years. Only the personnel of the Supreme Court did. Interestingly enough, the idea that somehow the 8th Amendment does not allow executions is a relatively recent development. It does not take a genius to realize that this development has nothing to do with the 8th Amendment and everything to do with the Court's personnel.
Baze is nothing more than another variation of the same anti-death penalty theme. Which is why they also tried to abuse the 8th Amendment. The Court dismissed that 8th Amendment challenge. I was responding to your point that somehow we originalists have failed.
Don't try to isolate the problem to Baze's lawyers. When we see similar challenges to Virginia ( http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-07-10-0223.html ) and Missouri ( http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/2C9E0189A48381A88625748800705EA1?OpenDocument ) have already collapsed and Justice Kennedy's factually inaccurate opinion about federal law regarding execution for child rapists, one can't help but suspect that the problem is more fundamental.
Posted by: realist | Jul 22, 2008 2:36:52 PM
Wow S.cotus, the depth of your piercing irony really lays bare the fundamental injustices of our system.
Posted by: Lucky Jim | Jul 22, 2008 2:48:04 PM
Realist, Of course we have a democratic republic in the US, but that does not mean the views of just anyone matter. It is like this in every country. Some people matter more than others. At least in the US, anyone, by going to law school and working inside the beltway for a few years, can matter, too.
In the past 200 years there have been minimal changes to the constitution. The biggest came after we beat the south at the game of war, and we needed to make sure that they followed the constitution, because southerners can’t really be trusted.
However, just because the “text” remains static doesn’t mean that its application remains static. There are a number of words in the constitution that refer to exogenous materials. These include: 1) common law; 2) law of nations; and 3) “unusual.”
While, of course, you are free to declare that any constitutional result that you don’t like is “abuse” to the rest of us it seems like excuse-making. A better lawyer would have been able to convince the decision-maker that his client’s position was correct. While you may think that you are smarter than the Supreme Court Justices or can make better arguments, you were simply unable to convince them that you were correct. A better lawyer might have been able to do this. You have two alternatives. 1) declare yourself to be smarter than the justices on a blog; and 2) change the constitution.
Indeed, lest you think that you don’t have many options, I should note that your have MORE options than the people sentenced to life in prison. They can simply complain to themselves about their failures to convince decision-makers of their points (i.e. that they are innocent), and they probably cannot change the constitution from a jail cell. So, in the long run you have more democratic options open to you than a convict despite the fact that you were both unable to succeed in your legal projects.
Posted by: Sr.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 2:54:17 PM
Lucky, What injustice?
Posted by: Sr.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 2:55:10 PM
First, let me apologize for not noticing the subtle change in your username until now.
Since the death penalty was prevalent after the Civil War, I fail to see what's your point.
As for constitutional interpretation, I fail to see anything unusual about a mode of punishment adopted by 37 states and the federal government and existed for over 2 centuries.
I prefer option 3: change the composition of the Court. Since some members of the Court have departed from the text a tradition that is far longer than recent innovations and since they have shown no signs of being willing to be talked out of their misguided devotion to their ideology, they will have to be replaced. (See Justice O'Connor's replacement)
The thing about living in a republic is that eventually, even the indirectly elected parts of the political system will reflect the will of the people. (As demonstrated in a recent Quinnipac poll showing that 55% of the American people support the death penalty for child rapists. Only 38% are opposed.)
Posted by: realist | Jul 22, 2008 3:09:08 PM
Realist, While of course you may seek to change the composition of the court, there is no guarantee that whoever you think will be on the court in the future will be convinced by your arguments. Indeed, it seems rather farfetched to appoint justices that claim to have not prejudged an issue with the expectation that they have prejudged it. But, although I have been involved in some nominations of lower court judges, I really don’t follow politics the way you people do.
Indeed, I suspect that lawyers for defendants will probably do a better job at representing their clients than lawyers for the states. This is generally because the defendants are represented by lawyers from large firms who tend to be better advocates and have support staffs that can handle the bluebooking better.
Whatever the case, I have little use for popular opinions since the lay people generally just repeat the soundbites we give them. In fact, their views on Baze and Kennedy are really useless since they didn’t read them. This is why I don’t talk to non-lawyers. Waste of time.
Posted by: Src.otus | Jul 22, 2008 3:15:29 PM
realist wrote: "The text of the 8th Amendment has not changed for more than 200 years. Only the personnel of the Supreme Court did. Interestingly enough, the idea that somehow the 8th Amendment does not allow executions is a relatively recent development. It does not take a genius to realize that this development has nothing to do with the 8th Amendment and everything to do with the Court's personnel."
So? Who said the Constitution must mean today what it meant in the 18th Century? You? Who is to say the proper interpretation of the Constitution is not what a secular, educated man of the enlightenment might say it meant were he modern? You? Do you fancy yourself a dictator?
This is nothing but an expression of your ideological preferences, preferences that I personally find to be silly. Your pretensions otherwise are but a transparent effort to bolster your feigned objectivity.
Posted by: DK | Jul 22, 2008 3:19:24 PM
Of the 112 Supreme Court justices in the country's history, exactly 4 (Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun and now Stevens) have taken the view that the death penalty is per se a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The other 108 have not. A margin of 108 to 4 would have to be looked upon as staggering in any venue. Among the 108 are the widely respected moderates Lewis F. Powell and Sandra Day O'Connor.
Both major presidential candidates have said that they favor the death penalty, including for non-homicide offenses such as child rape.
Thirty seven states and the federal government have the death penalty.
According to any reliable poll you care to look at, the death penalty is supported by slightly over two-thirds of the public. Gallup's most recent poll has capital punishment being supported by 69%. A little less than a quarter of the public believes that it is imposed too often; a little more that a quarter believes that it's imposed about the right amount; and half believe that it's not imposed often enough.
Bottom line: The death penalty enjoys overwhelming support among the judicial branch, the elected branches, and the public.
That being the case, it is not those who support the national consensus favoring the death penalty who are "dictators." Instead, the dictators will have to be drawn from the elite who think they should make the rules based on their self-conferred (but otherwise undetectable) intellectual and moral superiority, the "ignorant" public be damned.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 22, 2008 6:29:03 PM
Why does the opinion of the public matter? It is for good reason that the framers of the constitution kept the little people out of government. They are stupid and uneducated. Sure, since the time of the framers there have been some minor constitutional changes that have brought the uneducated classes closer to government. However, for the most part the are unwelcome in the halls of power (except as pesky tourists). They are simply incapable of understanding the issues because their minds are better wired for sit-coms then they are for complex legal or policy. (Strangely, as bad as Americans are, Africans and Europeans are far worse.)
At some level, if we had daily PUBLIC killings by the state, I am wonder if people would still feel the same way about state-sponsored killings? But, most governments oppose it because they think that the “f***ing little people” (in the words of a state AG) would be too easily swayed by the sight of a state employee killing someone and then having a chuckle over it five nights a week every week!
Anyway, another reason why these polls are useless. Most of the people they asked don't even know what Baze was about, let alone did they read it. Even fewer read Kennedy. I asked 25 little people if they had read either one of these things, and they all though that Kennedy was a president. Some of these people even think that Baze and Kennedy were challenges to all state killings. What ignorant fools!
I think most people agree with my assessment of the little people. The current administration has opposed jury trials for some people it really doesn't like, thinking that the little people are so unpatriotic that they will simply let all the terrorists go free no matter what the evidence. (And, to some extent, I agree. I would say that it is a form of terrorism not to go to law school. Therefore, these people should not be allowed on juries.)
Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 22, 2008 7:00:26 PM
You confuse the U.S. for an authentic democracy rather than a kleptocracy (also currently a kakistocracy) in which elites like you influence and make policy and, indeed, shape public opinion through the effective use of propaganda and "public relations" for your own ends. Always keep that in mind.
"That the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinion arises is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages, and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough. The creation of consent is not a new art. It is a very old one which was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy. But it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technic, because it is now based on analysis rather than on rule of thumb. And so, as a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power.
"Within the life of the generation now in control of affairs, persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government. . . . Under the impact of propaganda, not necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone, the old constants of our thinking have become variables. It is no longer possible, for example, to believe in the original dogma of democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs comes up spontaneously from the human heart. . . . In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality."
--Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, New York: Macmillan, 1960 (original 1922), p. 248, 310.
Posted by: DK | Jul 22, 2008 8:02:20 PM
DK, As an elite I am really offended by what you say. The US is not a “kleptocracy.” We earn our money. Moreover, anyone can be an elite. However, becoming an elite means giving up NASCAR and sit-coms, which most little people are unwilling to do. Even for a week.
Posted by: S.cute.us | Jul 22, 2008 8:06:44 PM
How deliciously ironic to quote Walter Lippmann, a virtual charter member of the elite, and a fellow who had massively more influence in shaping public opinion that I do or ever will, as warning us of the elites who shape public opinion!
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 22, 2008 10:52:40 PM
Beware of the pool, blue bottomless pool
Posted by: federalist | Jul 23, 2008 2:53:03 AM
S COTUS - if you would spend some time in Red State America you would find that far from being uneducated hicks, there are many NASCAR fans who qualify as elites. The income level and education level of people who attend NASCAR races is in both cases above average (hardly surprising when you consider how much it takes to attend a race). Yes, there are NASCAR fans who meet the stereotype, but there are also doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and other elite types who are NASCAR fans. Personally, I don't understand it (not liking auto racing per se, because I like road course sports car racing and the Indy/F1 cars), and I don't see the attraction of seeing boring cars go in ovals, but I know there are people you consider real Americans (such as several lawyers) who watch NASCAR which kind of ruins your argument.
Posted by: Zack | Jul 23, 2008 10:27:39 AM
Zack, Oh, don’t you worry, I can fake being a NASCAR fan if I have to. In fact, many lawyers will talk about NASCAR just to curry favor with potential clients. Then they go home and snicker or take a shower. If there is one constant, NASCAR fans are easily fooled.
However, I have absolutely no intention of going to middle America. It is a waste of time.
Posted by: Sr.cotus | Jul 23, 2008 10:31:21 AM
I live in the Southeast, not Middle America. And at least in the Southeast, I've heard plenty of lawyers talk about NASCAR where there were no clients around.
Posted by: Zack | Jul 23, 2008 11:15:53 AM
They were just practicing. Heck, I don't really like tennis or yachting, but my clients do. So I fake it. But it takes practice.
Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 23, 2008 11:40:16 AM