Most amazing citations you will ever see. Forum

[fester11]

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Beer, Soft Drink, Water, Fruit Juice, Carbonic Gas, Liquor Sales Drivers, Helpers, Inside Workers, Bottlers, Warehousemen, School, Sightseeing, Charter Bus Drivers, General Promotions Employees, and Employees of Affiliated Industries, Malster, Laborers, Syrup, Yeast, Food, Vinegar, Brewery, Recycling and Miscellaneous Workers of Chicago and Vicinity, Illinois, Local Unions No. 744, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 280 F.3d 1133 (2002)

(i) Union and local union names.

Cite a union name exactly as given in the official reporter. This general rule is subject, however, to the following exceptions:

(i) Only the smallest unit should be cited:

NLRB v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Local 1212
Not: NLRB v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Local 1212, IBEW, AFL-CIO

(ii) All craft or industry designations, except the first full such designation, should be omitted:

Douds v. Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Not: Douds v. Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
But: International Union of Doll & Toy Workers v. Local 379

(iii) A widely recognized abbreviation of the union’s name (e.g., UAW) may be used in accordance with rules 6.1(b) and 10.2.1(c).

(iv) All prepositional phrases of location, including those of national or larger areas, should be omitted.

[TTH]

I'm sure this has something to do with his TTT clerks.

[jkay]

You're an idiot. He's citing to an argument that he previously made simply because he's making that same argument again; he's clearly not citing his past decisions as binding authority. There was absolutely no reason to make this thread.

I realize what he's doing, and I still think it's amazing. Originalism makes no sense. The very first sentence of this dissent: "The Court's decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment."

This is ridiculous on many levels. First, it is an insult to the incredibly smart people who wrote the Constitution. To assert that they believed they were creating a rigid and unchanging document requires a serious absence of intellectual horsepower.

Second, at least some of those people were strong supporters of slavery, so to read Thomas writing about "original public understanding" of the Constitution is incongruous at best.

[beach_terror]

You're an idiot. He's citing to an argument that he previously made simply because he's making that same argument again; he's clearly not citing his past decisions as binding authority. There was absolutely no reason to make this thread.

I realize what he's doing, and I still think it's amazing. Originalism makes no sense. The very first sentence of this dissent: "The Court's decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment."

This is ridiculous on many levels. First, it is an insult to the incredibly smart people who wrote the Constitution. To assert that they believed they were creating a rigid and unchanging document requires a serious absence of intellectual horsepower.

Second, at least some of those people were strong supporters of slavery, so to read Thomas writing about "original public understanding" of the Constitution is incongruous at best.

Originalism makes more "sense" than activist courts do. HTH.

[TTH]

You're an idiot. He's citing to an argument that he previously made simply because he's making that same argument again; he's clearly not citing his past decisions as binding authority. There was absolutely no reason to make this thread.

I realize what he's doing, and I still think it's amazing. Originalism makes no sense. The very first sentence of this dissent: "The Court's decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment."

This is ridiculous on many levels. First, it is an insult to the incredibly smart people who wrote the Constitution. To assert that they believed they were creating a rigid and unchanging document requires a serious absence of intellectual horsepower.

Second, at least some of those people were strong supporters of slavery, so to read Thomas writing about "original public understanding" of the Constitution is incongruous at best.

Originalism makes more "sense" than activist courts do. HTH.

On behalf of law students everywhere, I just want to thank you and your fellow Federalist Society members for using that tax evader's money to buy better food than pizza for your presentations. Seriously, man, we appreciate it.

[beach_terror]

You're an idiot. He's citing to an argument that he previously made simply because he's making that same argument again; he's clearly not citing his past decisions as binding authority. There was absolutely no reason to make this thread.

I realize what he's doing, and I still think it's amazing. Originalism makes no sense. The very first sentence of this dissent: "The Court's decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment."

This is ridiculous on many levels. First, it is an insult to the incredibly smart people who wrote the Constitution. To assert that they believed they were creating a rigid and unchanging document requires a serious absence of intellectual horsepower.

Second, at least some of those people were strong supporters of slavery, so to read Thomas writing about "original public understanding" of the Constitution is incongruous at best.

Originalism makes more "sense" than activist courts do. HTH.

On behalf of law students everywhere, I just want to thank you and your fellow Federalist Society members for using that tax evader's money to buy better food than pizza for your presentations. Seriously, man, we appreciate it.

NOT A CONSERVATIVE OR MEMBER OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY, BUT THANKS?

[pleasetryagain]

This thread is absolutely insufferable. OP clearly is a 0L.. everyone else cares too much.

[CyLaw]

This thread is absolutely insufferable. OP clearly is a 0L.. everyone else cares too much.

OP is a rising 2L

[pleasetryagain]

This thread is absolutely insufferable. OP clearly is a 0L.. everyone else cares too much.

OP is a rising 2L

well then he should have his tuition refunded...

[gradesmatter]

This thread is absolutely insufferable. OP clearly is a 0L.. everyone else cares too much.

OP is a rising 2L

well then he should have his tuition refunded...

[beardown_tho]

I realize what he's doing, and I still think it's amazing. Originalism makes no sense. The very first sentence of this dissent: "The Court's decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment."

But you were attacking him for citing himself, not for originalism.

[gwuorbust]

Nobody cares.

[applejacks]

[Stanford4Me]

I just want to say:

Fuck you OP for this thread.

[robert85]

Words fail.

[truthypants]

This thread is awful.

--ImageRemoved--

[thecilent]

Words fail.

This made me lol

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

What is this thread.

[gwuorbust]

What is this thread.

worthless nonsense ?

[stormy]

[gingersnaps]

[td6624]

What is this thread.

standard tls thread where people act douchey about other people acting douchey (omg it's just like law school) and then some other people come in and decide to post animated .gifs because that's what the internet was made for.

(am i now acting douchey about people acting douchey about people acting douchey? MAYBE I SHOULD THROW IN AN ANIMATED .GIF HERE.)

[beach_terror]

What is this thread.

standard tls thread where people act douchey about other people acting douchey (omg it's just like law school) and then some other people come in and decide to post animated .gifs because that's what the internet was made for.

(am i now acting douchey about people acting douchey about people acting douchey? MAYBE I SHOULD THROW IN AN ANIMATED .GIF HERE.)

You should probably just stop posting so the thread stops getting bumped.

[td6624]

What is this thread.

standard tls thread where people act douchey about other people acting douchey (omg it's just like law school) and then some other people come in and decide to post animated .gifs because that's what the internet was made for.

(am i now acting douchey about people acting douchey about people acting douchey? MAYBE I SHOULD THROW IN AN ANIMATED .GIF HERE.)

You should probably just stop posting so the thread stops getting bumped.

or you should probably just stop posting so the thread stops getting bumped.... ?

[npe]

bump