Realistic Valentines Cards

10 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases Explained in Limerick

MARBURY v. MADISON 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) (1803)

It kind of all started right here
When Chief Justice John Marshall made clear
That the courts get to glean
What the law says and means
In con law this case has no peer.

BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

“Separate but equal” is crap
Segregation just got knee-capped
It’s the law of the land
And the bigots be damned
Integration is now on the map.

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

If you find yourself locked up in cuffs
Do not let the cops call your bluff
You need not say a word
‘Til your lawyer has heard
All the evidence, charges, and stuff.

LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Black and White couples can marry
To say otherwise will be contrary
To equal protection
And the State’s interjection
Will not get the court's sanctuary.

TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1(1968)

Cops do not need your permission
If they have a well-reasoned suspicion
They can stop you and frisk you
Without any risk to
The Fourth Amendment's two key prohibitions.

ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

A woman can have an abortion
And Texas was out of proportion
The due process clause
Does not let states make laws
That allow reproductive extortion.

LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

What two adult men do in bed
Is a place that the law may not tread
Gay men have due process
Regardless of undress
And Bowers v. Hardwick is dead.

GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER, 539 U.S. 206 (2003)

Affirmative action is good
A law school did just what it should
To promote its diversity
There’s no legal adversity
Nor a threat to the White livelihood.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

Corporations can spend lots of dough
To get people elected, you know
The First Amendment makes plain
He who makes the most rain
Will have Congress tied up in a bow.

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, 576 U.S. __ (2015)

Same sex couples may walk down the aisle
Though some may consider it vile
Well that’s really too bad
For it’s now ironclad
That gay marriage is not a “lifestyle.”

My Family Literally Has the Same Conversation Every Weekday Morning and This is How it Goes

[Scene: Typical weekday morning car shuttle clusterfuck in which we all drive to school and work together. Geoff drives. He drops off Paige, then me, then Isaac. Don’t ask why we do it this way. We just do. Suffice it to say it’s not my idea and I’ll leave it at that because to explain it would take a whole other blog post I don’t have time for right now]

Geoff: Holy shit. Who was the last person to drive this car? [Turns to me]

Me: I assume it was me; I’m the only other licensed driver in our household.

Geoff: How short are you?

Me: The same height I’ve been for 26 years.

Geoff: Every time I get in this car after you drive it the radio is blasting top 40, the seat is pulled up practically into the windshield, and the seat warmer is set to 175 degrees. [Turns to Isaac and Paige]: Do you guys have your backpacks, jackets, and lunches?

Paige:

Isaac:

Geoff: I believe I’ve said MANY times that the price of admission to this vehicle is your backpacks, lunches, and jackets. I don’t understand how we do this every day and why no one ever lis—

Paige: But I left my skating bag back there and ha—

Geoff: Don’t interrupt me! Just go get your stuff!

[Isaac and Paige both get out of car and get the shit they know they are supposed to get every single morning before this part of the conversation happens, then get back into car]

Geoff: [Turns radio to NPR]

Isaac: Can we listen to Mix 106?

Me: Yeah, can we? It’s like for whatever reason every time I want to hear the news there’s a 15 minute human interest story about some guy who just fulfilled his lifelong dream of building a combination yurt/rowboat. Like I just don’t give a fuck, ya know?

Geoff: Fine.

Isaac: [2 minutes into a Katy Perry song]: Why does she "ride him like a roller coaster?”

Paige: Ugh you’re so STUPID, Isaac!

Isaac: Mom, Paige called me stupid!

Me: [Grateful for distraction from the roller coaster question] [To myself quietly]: Why do they play songs about Katy Perry riding Juicy J at 7:45 a.m.? [To Paige]: Paige, don’t call your brother stupid.

Geoff: Here’s that seven inches of snow we were supposed to get that’s actually half an inch. Why is there no snow? I can’t believe there’s still no snow. This winter is so fucked.

Me: Dude, you have to stop talking about it. It's so annoying. Talking about how little snow there is isn’t going to make more snow appear. Also, you're kind of in denial about global warming.

Geoff: Dude you have to stop picking your face with that thing. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to tweeze your eyebrows in a moving vehicle on ice? Why can't you just sit still? Why do you always have to be doing shit with your phone or the tweezers or whatever? Instead of retweeting Trump’s status update, how about you use that phone for something useful and tell us when the snow is coming. [Pulls into roundabout at Paige’s school] I don’t understand all the people who park in this circle. You’re not supposed to park here. It’s a very dangerous situation. Everyone thinks the rules don’t apply to them. All of these fucking parents are out here running up mountains every weekend and kayaking around Douglas and they can’t park in a fucking parking lot to walk their kids 50 yards into school? They have to park their giant pickup truck in the fire lane like the sign says "FIRE LANE EXCEPT FOR [NAME REDACTED]?" Honestly some of these hippies are the most selfish people on earth, it’s kind of ironic. [Turns to kids]: If I ever catch you guys acting like the rules don't apply to you I'm gonna be PISSED.

Paige: [Gets out of car]

Me: Bye honey!

Paige: Bye Mommy!

Me: [To Geoff] So say something to the school.

Geoff: No way. I’m not going to be THAT guy.

Me: Then why do you have to keep mentioning it then?

Geoff: Can’t you just let me mention it? Is it really that horrible for you?

Me: Do you really want me to answer that?

Isaac: I have to pooooooooooop.

Geoff: Isaac, how many times have we discussed that you should poop BEFORE we leave the house in the morning?

Isaac: But I didn’t have to go then!

Me: Don’t worry, we’re almost at my work, you can poop there.

Isaac: But there’s too much traaaaaaaaafic. I’m going to exploooooode! I’m the unluckiest boy in the WOOOOOORLD!!!!

Me: Yes, you're right out of a Charles Dickens novel. 

Isaac: Haha, you said "DICK," mom!

Geoff: [Driving up Main Street toward the Capitol Building] [To pedestrian]: GO GO GO GO OH MY GOD JUST GO!! I don’t understand why pedestrians never want to take the right of way. It’s a very dangerous situation – like you have the right of way. Take it! And why is this guy out here with his dog off leash in the middle of downtown on a weekday? And how are all these people walking around in these shoes? And who thinks this is a good place to pull over? Is this person on fucking quaaludes? I don’t get it. I don’t get it. I just don't get it.

Me: You realize you sound like a grouchy old man, right? [Takes Isaac inside to poop, then back out again].

Geoff: Don’t forget we have [insert whatever thing we have] tonight. See you at 5, love you, bye!

Me: [To Isaac]: Do good work in school, love you [Tries to make physical contact]

Isaac: [Cringes in revulsion] NO KISS!!!!! NO KISS!!!!

OMG Please Let Me Explain Due Process 101 to President Trump!

I can’t tell you how glad I am that President Trump asked a question that sparked one of my all-time favorite topics of convo: 

Constitutional law! YAASSSS QUEEEEEN.

In defending dudes accused of domestic violence and sexual assault, the President asked: “is there no such thing any longer as due process?” It’s actually a good question, so let’s discuss.

First we need to understand the constitutional origins of “due process.” I’ll do what Trump didn’t do, and go to Wikipedia:

Here’s the basic difference between traditional “procedural” due process and the more complicated "substantive" due process:

Procedural due process comes directly from the text of the constitution, whereas substantive due process has developed and evolved through Supreme Court case law over the years.

A good example of substantive due process at work is Roe v. Wade. Another is Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case in which SCOTUS held that the government may not criminalize intimate homosexual conduct among consenting adults. In basic terms, the Court's decisions here were grounded in a substantive due process personal autonomy/liberty theory.

But I don't think Trump was talking about substantive due process, because here is what he tweeted:

Here we can assume that Trump is referring to procedural due process, which is what most people mean when they throw around the term "due process."

In simplest terms, and as you can conclude from the above, procedural due process requires three things: (1) state action; (2) notice; and (3) an opportunity to be heard prior to the government depriving someone of life, liberty, or property.

For the people whose lives are being "shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation," we first need to ask ourselves a threshold question: was there even state action? 

The answer is likely no. 

It's hard to say for sure without knowing who exactly Trump is referring to, but given the timing of his tweet, we can assume it was White House staff secretary Rob Porter, who resigned when it was revealed that he beat up two of his wives and cold-cocked one of them in the eyeball (ALLEGEDLY). 

He wasn't fired, he resigned. So the government didn't deprive him of his job, to the extent he had a constitutional property interest in a high-level executive branch job like the one he held. He certainly was not deprived of life or liberty by law enforcement or the court system. 

So that pretty much ends the due process inquiry. But let's ask the "notice" and "opportunity to be heard" questions anyway. 

You can say Rob had "notice" of his little "problem" because his DV rap sheet was holding up his security clearance and everyone knew it, most of all him. It was not a surprise. As far as an "opportunity to be heard," there were no charges brought and certainly no trial, so, um, we don't really even get to that point, either.

As far as all of these Hollywood guys and other media executives who have fallen from grace since the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, guess who doesn't have to comply with the due process clause of the constitution? 

MOVIE STUDIOS AND PRIVATE PUBLICATIONS, Y'ALL! 

Yes, it's true. Private companies can hire and fire whoever they want and they don't need to worry about the constitution! 

To be sure, there are usually other laws like statutes and contracts at issue that must be reviewed and adhered to in such situations. But there is no constitutional "due process" problem when a private company decides to hand the pink slip to someone accused of sexual assault. 

As far as I know, there is still such a thing as due process, so the answer to the President's question is yes, for now. 

But it’s all a bit academic, isn’t it, since none of the people Trump cares about were ever actually subject to state action such that they need to ask that question at all, much less worry about infringement of their due process rights.

The Constitution does a lot of things, but it does not protect men's reputations. There is no "DUE REPUTATION" clause in the constitution.

Full stop.

One Fist, Two Fist, Black Fist, Blue Fist

One fist
Two fist
Black fist
Blue fist

Tight fist
Closed fist
Left Fist
Right Fist

This one was a rising star
This one drives a fancy car
Say, what a lot
Of cops there are!

Yes. 

Some are old 

And some are new
Some are lies 

But most are true
Where is all THAT process due?

Some dudes are sad 

And some are mad
And some are very, very bad.

Why are they sad and bad and mad?
You’ll have to ask 

Their moms and dads.

Some are thin
And some are fat
Some shoot guns 

And some wield bats

From there to here 

From here to there
These violent men
Are everywhere!

Here are some 

Who like to run
They run for office
And they spend a ton!

Oh me oh my
Oh me oh my
All these wives 

With blackened eyes!

Some have two victims
Some have four
Some have six
And some have more

Where do they come from?
I can't say

But they get away with it

Every day!

Some are high 

And some are sober

They're all exactly like each other

You’re warned about them

By your mother

Say!

Look at his court file

One, two, three

How many protective orders

Do I see?

One, two, three, four

Five, six, seven,

Eight, nine, ten,

He has eleven!

Eleven!

This is nothing new

Here come the "reputation" defenders

Right on cue!

I Wish I Could Have Been in the Room Where That 1989 Juicy Fruit Gum Ad Was Written

I don't mean to brag, but I was on the cusp of puberty in 1989 when this commercial for Wrigley's Juicy Fruit gum came out, and all I can say is that this 30-second ad for chewing gum has LEGIT the most suggestive jingle and shots EVER WRITTEN! 

The commercial comes in two versions--a snow skiing and a water skiing version I believe-- but here are the lyrics:

Get your skis shined up

Grab a stick of juicy fruit 

The taste is gonna move ya

Take a sniff, pull it out

The taste is gonna move ya when you pop it in your moooooouth

Juicy Fruit is gonna move ya

It chews so soft 

It gets right to ya

Juicy Fruit

The taste the taste the taste is gonna mooooooove ya

Like here's how I bet the first meeting went.

JUICY FRUIT EXEC: Okay, so here's what I'm thinking. Sex sells, as we all know, so here's what we think the commercial should say. [Takes paper out of pocket--remember, this is the 80s]

Get your dick lubed up

Grab your junk out of your pants

And come and get a blow job

Drop that fly, pull it out

You're really gonna love it when I jizz inside your mouuuuuuth

Chew this gum, you'll get a blow job

A really good and awesome blow job

Juicy Fruit

The gum the gum the gum that gets you bloooow jooooooooooobs!

AD AGENCY: We like it. BUT, it's a little explicit, I'm afraid. Can we rewrite it to be, um, a little more subtle?

JUICY FRUIT: I don't know. I'm not sure anyone will want to buy this gum that tastes like fake fruit for three seconds and then like cardboard the rest of the time unless they think it will somehow result in sex or at least a blow job.

AD AGENCY: I think I get what you're saying. Let us work on this and develop a few more signals and suggestive shots and concepts and let's see what we think. It'll be a huge hit!

JUICY FRUIT: Okay, sounds good.

And the rest, my friends, is history.

The One Treasured Thing that Always Deserves the Most Honor and Protection

Let’s talk for a minute about reputations. 

Specifically the male reputation. More specifically the white male reputation. Even more specifically the wealthy white male reputation. And more specifically yet, Rob Porter’s reputation.

Because the extent to which the recently-resigned White House staff secretary's reputation is being protected and defended by two of the most powerful men on earth merits a deeper dive into how and why the wealthy white male reputation is so protected, so valued, and so coddled by our society.

Rob Porter, in case you missed it, is the White House staff secretary who was forced to resign when public allegations surfaced that he’d physically assaulted two of his ex-wives. Talking Points Memo has a good timeline of who knew what when. Porter's first wife, Colbie Holderness, had receipts in the form of photos of black eyes she said Porter gave her. 

Porter resigned, and President Trump (himself the target of multiple allegations of sexual assault and misconduct) deemed the resignation “very sad,” “absolutely wish[ed] him well,” and chided us that “he says he’s innocent and I think you have to remember that.”

But it wasn't this run-of-the-mill, so-predictable-as-to-be-boring "innocent-until-proven-guilty-even-though-that's-actually-not-the-standard-except-in-a-criminal-trial" canard from a known sleazebag that warrants scrutiny. 

It’s Chief of Staff John Kelly’s quote. He said:

There’s no place for domestic violence in our society. I stand by my previous comments of the Rob Porter that I have come to know since becoming Chief of Staff, and believe every individual deserves the right to defend their reputation. I accepted his resignation earlier today.

So let’s break this down.

The sad fact is that there is a place for domestic violence in our society. A big one.

In Alaska alone, a 2015 study funded by the Alaska Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and conducted by the UAA Justice Center showed that a full 50% of adult women had experienced intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or both in the course of their lifetimes. 

But—as the Chief of Staff said—“every individual deserves the right to defend their reputation.” By “individual” he means “man,” and by “their” he means “his,” because that’s the real source of Kelly’s grief. 

The damage to Porter's "reputation."

Not the bodies or the allegations of Porter’s ex-wives. Those are just self-serving embellishments—if not outright lies— that are causing a political and administrative headache for John Kelly. This is not the Rob Porter he knows, and therefore that Rob Porter is presumed not to exist. 

And, most importantly, we must protect and defend with all the mighty resources at our disposal Rob Porter’s precious “reputation.”

You see, in our society it’s easier and more instinctive to be horrified by the wounds inflicted on men’s “reputations” and “lost opportunities” and career potential than it is to acknowledge or seek justice for the physical and emotional wounds these same men have freely inflicted, and the opportunities and potential that they have stolen, from their victims through their own actions.

This also seems as good a time as any to point out that the only person responsible for destroying Rob Porter’s reputation is Rob Porter. 

For a group of people that's constantly touting accountability and self-sufficiency, powerful white men sure have a knack for abdicating those principles entirely when it comes to their own conduct.

Maybe if we placed less value on defending the male reputation, and more on protecting women’s bodies and contributions to society, there wouldn’t be so many men whose reputations needed defending in the first place.