One of President Bush’s nominees, Carolyn B. Kuhl, has been given a “well-qualified” rating, the highest rating available, by the liberal American Bar Assocation. Nevertheless, she’s run into a good deal of opposition from some liberal opponents, for the simple reason that, well, they’re liberals, and she isn’t. Now, those nice people at the Daily Monopoly Los Angeles Times (requires free registration) have joined in on the fun, even while purporting to report the news. Here’s a real gem by Times Staff Writer Jean Guccione:

As a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, Kuhl wrote a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. [sic] Wade and outlaw abortion.

[Emphasis added.]

I won’t pretend to have actually read Ms. Kuhl’s brief, as Ms. Guccione obviously hasn’t, either. However, I can say without reservation that Ms. Kuhl did not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to “outlaw” abortion. Had she been foolish enough to do so (on what legal theory?!), she probably never would have made it past the bar exam, let alone been invited to serve as deputy attorney general under the Reagan Administration. Even if she did manage all that somehow, she certainly would not have received a “qualified” rating, let alone “well-qualified,” from the ABA. So what did Ms. Guccione do? Simply make the statement up and hope no one would notice?

Link via Howard Bashman.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the brief Ms. Guccione couldn’t be bothered to read.

Eugene Volokh, took Reason to task for its critique of what Reason dubbed a “class-action POW lawsuit.” Given Eugene’s penchant for criticizing potentially superfluous words and phrases, I was a little surprised to see that he didn’t criticize them for using the phrase “class action suit.” After all, when was the last time you heard of a class action that wasn’t a suit, or a “class suit” that wasn’t an action?

According to my Civil Procedure professor at Boalt, the historical distinction between “actions” and “suits” was drawn along the lines of law vs. equity, i.e, one brought an “action” at law, or a “suit” in equity. [For any nonlawyers reading this blog, you don't need to understand the arcane distinction between law and equity; it's enough to know that they are two different types of claims that are based on different theories, and which were historically brough before separate tribunals.] When “actions” at law were really different from “suits” in equity, the phrase “class action suit” would have been a contradiction in terms; either you brought an action or a suit on behalf of the class, but not both. Now that both types of cases are brought before the same tribunals, the terms “class action” and “class suit” are largely interchangeable, but there’s still no reason to use both terms together.

OK, I just thought of two instances in which the phrase “class action suit” would actually be appropriate. Neither of them, however, have anything to do with the way that phrase is normally used. Here they are:

• A trial lawyer argues both individual actions and class actions. For some reason, he has a particular suit he likes to wear, but he only wears it when he’s arguing class actions. That suit is, by definition, his “class action suit.”
• A playboy has a few suits he likes to wear whenever he is out searching for … well, “action.” Most of his suits, which he likes to call his “action suits,” are just as tacky as this idea sounds. One, however, is actually pretty classy, and is reserved for special occasions. That one is, relatively speaking, his “class action suit.”

Just when I was ready to put a fork in the Dwyer/Reisch/Stevens/Krieger affair, I got a new wave of hits from a Greedy Associates discussion board. Welcome, and hats off to Linkon for the link.

UPDATE: Another poster on GA, Harry Wycoff, writes “Once again, the official legal media gets scooped by the Greedy Associates. Good work.” At the risk of repeating myself, I am going to assume that the majority of the people who first found my blog today as a result of Likon’s post did not catch John Roemer’s hatchet job in the December 24, 2002 Daily UrinalJournal. If you did, this will be old news, so ignore it. If you didn’t, though, you may want to take a glance at my response, Stefan Sharkansky’s, and Erin O’Connor’s. The article itself isn’t available online without a paid subscription, but that’s OK. After reading all three responses, you’ll feel as though you read the article itself, followed by a group fisking of the same. [To those new to the blogosphere, click here for a pretty good definition of the term "fisking."]

Eugene Volokh objects to the phrases “to be honest” and “frankly.” His objection is summed up by this statement:

The phrase, like its shorter equivalent, “frankly,” usually comes up in speech rather than in print, and it’s obviously harder to edit what you say. Still, I’ve tried to avoid this locution, precisely because people who actually pay attention to the phrase might quite reasonably be put off

Here’s one solution to Planned Parenthood’s objection that South Carolina’s “Choose Life” license plates aren’t viewpoint-neutral enough to pass First Amendment muster.

Somebody, please, give the pooch a bone and his former owner a Darwin Award.

Link via Eugene Volokh.

The key role of the Stalinist group Act Now to Stop War & End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.) in organizating the objectively pro-Saddam “peace” rallies is well-documented. [If that story alone didn't convince you, take a look here, here, or here.] Mickey Kaus, usually the thinking man’s liberal, acknowledges as much but argues that this is no big deal. Mickey reasons that every Vietnam War protester didn’t automatically turn into a Trotskyist just by attending an “anti-war” rally organized by Trotskyists, therefore, Saddam’s useful idiots today won’t become Stalinists, either. Not a completely satisfactory answer, in my view, but at least it is a defensible one, provided that it’s applied consistently. Lest anyone mistake his view for one intended to be applied consistently, however, Kaus adds this parenthetical remark:

What if the organizers were Nazis or the Klan?-ed. I’d feel different. So sue me.

“So sue me” is a cheap defense tactic; no one ever gets sued for expressing a silly opinion on the net. Fisking is the usual remedy, so perhaps he should instead have written “so fisk me.” I haven’t the time or energy to do that right now, so all I am going to say is that if there is any legitimate reason for treating all associations with Mass Murderer A as something to be avoided at any costs, while accepting casual associations with Mass Murderer B (whose body exceeds that of A by a comfortable margin) as much ado about nothing, then maybe Mickey’s just picking up on some really deep subtlety that I have overlooked. His reference to the Klan is even more “subtle” than that. I don’t pretend to know the total numebr of lynchings the Klan has been implicated in, but I am pretty sure that whatever that number may be, it’s a tad lower than, oh, I dunno, 14.5 million? I trust that Mickey will elaborate on his nuanced position in the future, just to help enlighten us simple folk.

Saddam’s regime tells us it really, really wants its scientists to tell to the U.N. everything, but gee whiz, for some reason those pesky scientists just don’t want to. And of course the Iraqi government would never pressure its prisoners citizens into doing something they didn’t want to do. Puh-leeze. Between this and Hussein’s 100%-0% “re-election” margin, somebody really needs to teach these guys Lying 101.

UPDATE: In one of the worst cases of grade inflation ever, it appears that Saddam’s evasive games have earned him a “B” grade from the UN. That grade could slip all the way down to a B-, though, if any of these scientists were to start talking and Saddam were to make good on this threat to kill them and/or their families.

UPDATE ON THE UPDATE: Or maybe not. It never occurred to me that murdering dissidents and their families might count as “cooperating” with the U.N.

Link via Instapundit.

I’m starting to wonder if this is only there to create fodder for this.

Anyone who discovered this blog before January 10 or found it through a Google search relating to that dreadful incident in Tennessee has already had a glimpse of Daisy. For the rest of you, here’s a pic of Daisy alone:

Daisy is a great dog, but she can’t get along with one of our other dogs, so we have little choice but to give one of them up. Daisy gets along fine with most dogs, but she’s not particularly good around cats. She’s absolutely wonderful with people, though, so the ideal home is one where she is the only pet. But enough of my talking, Daisy can speak for herself:

Hi, my name is Daisy. My guardian angels found me in a park near LAX at death’s door with a terrible stomach infection, probably from eating trash. They nursed me back to health and I have now gained back my weight and strength and have experienced life in a loving home. I am not too crazy about cats, but I get along with just about every dog I meet (except one of the ones my rescuers have, which is why they can’t keep me). I love kids, repairmen, and would probably kiss a burglar so you’ll just have to count on me for affection not protection of your property while you are away. I am a female about 18 months old and am part yellow lab, part pit-bull, and probably part something else. I am also part teddy bear because I love to snuggle and part kangaroo because I can jump over a 5 foot fence. But, don’t worry, if I get out, I will kiss the neighbors then wait for you on the front steps. Be careful not to leave your car window open as you pull into your driveway because I can’t wait to see you, so I might jump in the window and into your lap! P.S. My rescuers have put wire around their fence and it works fine to curtail my adventures in the neighborhood. I know how to sit and I know the word “treat.” My rescuers have been living through my chewing phase and have lost a few shoes, but I am more grown up now and they think they got the worst of it. Just keep the place stocked with toys and chewies for me and I will most likely stay out of trouble. If you adopt me, you will see that with this blond, you really will have more fun. Please call so they can bring me to your house to visit or even stay overnight to see if we are a good match for each other. I can’t wait to meet you because I already love you.

So there you have it. If you think you might want Daisy, please drop me a line. We are in Orange County, California. If you live anywhere in Southern California (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego or Ventura County), we’ll gladly deliver her to you. If you live anywhere else in the southwest, we’ll work with you. If you live in Canada, Chicago, England, the East Coast, or somewhere else, then it’s about time you visited Southern California, isn’t it?

UPDATE: To all you greedy associates from the Bay Area, we’ll be up your way the weekend of 2/22. If anyone is interested, we’ll be glad to bring Daisy up for that trip, unless of course she has been placed by then.