Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Friday Roundup

Dirty Talk.  As I mentioned earlier this week, the big showdown in the US Supreme Court was Tuesday's oral argument in FCC v. Fox, the case involving the FCC's recently-developed policy of punishing "fleeting expletives" in broadcast media.  (Discussed here.)  The anticipatory buzz was the prospect of the lawyers and justices batting around the forbidden words -- "fuck" and "shit" in this case -- causing John Marshall to turn over in his grave, or at least giggle a lot.  In fact, Justice Roberts had taken the caution of announcing that the audio of the argument, which is usually released within an hour, would be withheld, probably out of fear that some enterprising soul would do some creative splicing, and the internet would be flooded by the end of the week with .mp3's of Scalia seeming to say, "Fuck... Souter."

The fears proved unfounded, with nary a dirty word passing anybody's lips.  For those of you keeping score at home (the transcript of the argument can be found here), the euphemism count broke down as follows:  "F-word" was used sixteen times, "S-word" six, and "F-bomb" on a solitary occasion, courtesy of Solicitor-General Garre arguing that rejection of the FCC policy posed the specter of "Big Bird dropping the F-bomb on Sesame Street."  Better that than the S-word, I suppose.

That other F-word -- First Amendment -- found its way into the argument fifteen times, mostly in discussion of how the Court might avoid dealing with it.  That's somewhat understandable; the 2nd District, from whence the case originated, had refused to consider the issue as well, deciding the case solely as a question of administrative law and procedure.

So what's the likely outcome?  The Smart Guys over at SCOTUSBlog break it down for us:

It seemed possible that the Court’s majority would find the Second Circuit was somehow wrong, but that the Court might not want to flatly reverse because that would validate the current FCC policy without further justification, and it was not clear there would be a majority for that.  Could it be that the Court might simply affirm, but make the opinion so narrow as not to decide anything finally, until after the FCC reexamines its policy, and there is then another round in the courts? Or, indeed, might the Justices decide it was premature for them to have gotten involved?

Well, I guess that settles that, huh?

Bizarro World.  Courtesy of Overlawyered comes this story about Jonathan Lee Riches, who's currently an inmate of a South Carolina prison.  To occupy his time, he sues people -- George Bush, Michael Vick, Barry Bonds, the Eiffel Tower.  (Which of those is not like the other?)  His latest is against the manufacturer of a video game called World of Warcraft, which, according to the complaint,

caused Riches mind to live in a virtual universe, where Riches explored the landscape committing identity theft and fighting cybermonster rival hacker gangs.  Riches was addicted to video games and lost touch with reality because of defendants.  This caused Riches to commit fraud to buy defendants video games.  Riches chose World of Warcraft over working a legit job. Riches mind became a living video game.

Maybe next time Riches can sue the producers of Fox's Prison Break because they didn't take him along.

I wanna be elected.  A Democratic tide on Tuesday couldn't lift the boats of the two candidates for Ohio Supreme Court; they got swamped by 2-1 margins by the Republican incumbents, Maureen O'Connor and Evelyn Stratton, leaving us with an all-GOP lineup there.

In other election news, Cash America didn't waste any time announcing that it was shuttering its 43 stores in the wake of Tuesday's vote capping payday lenders' interest rates at 28%, down from a slightly more remunerative 391% annual rate. 

I've got mixed feelings on this.  On the one hand, these lenders did perform a service.  Try walking into a bank and getting them to loan you a couple hundred dollars until Friday's paycheck comes in.  And there's the standard libertarian argument about how government shouldn't interject itself into relationships between two freely-contracting parties, just to protect one of them.  On the other, that whole argument had too much of a taste of court decisions in the early 1900's rejecting wage, hour, and other labor protections, on the essential grounds that if 12-year-olds wanted to work in the coal mines, they should be free to do so.

See you on Monday.

Search

Recent Entries

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture