Renegades at the zoo

I was in D.C. over the weekend, so Liza and I decided to go to the zoo. By the time we finally stumbled out of bed, ate breakfast, drank a sufficient amount of coffee, got dressed and got to the zoo, it was 3:40 p.m.

Normally that wouldn't be a problem because the zoo is open until 6 p.m. But apparently it closes at 4 p.m. three days a year for "Boo at the Zoo," a Halloween thing for kids.

So there was a lady stationed at the zoo entrance to scare everyone from coming in. I guess technically, they couldn't prohibit entrance before closing, but they really tried to discourage it. She made us stop and stand there for three minutes (like, 15 percent of our available time there), while she amassed a large enough group to yell at that they were closing in 10 minutes (a lie -- they weren't closing for 15 minutes).

But Liza and I wanted to see big cats, so we went in.

It occurred to us pretty quickly that enforcing a closing time for some visitors while allowing "Boo at the Zoo" people to stay was going to be just about impossible, so we decided to try our luck and walk all the way to the far end of the zoo, where the lions and tigers live.

Along the way, zoo employees in pickup trucks barreled down the main walkway with bullhorns and yelled for everyone to leave. Again, this was difficult to enforce because parking lots are located at each end, so the Bullhorn People didn't know who was coming and who was going.

But Liza and I are not slick.

While everyone else walked naturally, we darted around, panic-stricken, and ducked behind trash cans/trees/walls whenever we thought we saw a zoo employee.

In the end, we got completely lost and wanted someone with a bullhorn to find us and kick us out -- we had already seen a lion and tiger and we figured the Bullhorn Person would give us a ride to the exit. That's when we realized they couldn't care less. We passed at least 10 zoo employees after almost everyone else had left, and they barely even looked at us. One tried to give us directions ("go straight, walk through the farm, and make a left at the brick road").

Turns out, the only one who cared was the lady at the entrance.

In other news, I have decided that Mattie is part fishing cat.

Because he lost a bet?

I meant to post this last week, but I'm assuming You People haven't seen it yet anyway, so you can pretend it's timely.

So the Supreme Court denied a cert petition to hear Pennsylvania v. Dunlap, which dealt with whether police have probable cause to make an arrest if they see people in a high-crime neighborhood exchanging cash for "small objects." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the officers lacked probable cause, so Dunlap's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when they arrested him. Robert and Kennedy disagree.

But here's the fun:

The Supreme Court denied review of the case, so Roberts wrote a dissent from the denial. Generally, I would think, dissents from denial are as bland as they sound (not that I read them), but I think I agree with mystery writer Paul Levine's theory that Roberts lost a bet on this one.* The dissent starts like this:

North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.

Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up thebuyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.

And then he continues, as if nothing had happened, in typical court language.

Levine, via Tony Mauro in the Legal Times blog:

"My guess is that the chief lost a bet with Scalia on the baseball playoffs. If Roberts wins the next wager, Scalia will have to write an opinion in iambic pentameter."

I hope so.

*(For the record, Orin Kerr's theory is less fun but more likely -- that Roberts knew this would get the attention of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, whose decision he wanted to reverse.)

On ambition...

I "adopted" a Guatemalan girl through Children International (it's a registered non-profit based out of Kansas City, it's not religious, all the money goes toward education and necessities) in January of this year. Anyway, when I started this thing in January, the girl, Evelin, wrote me a letter saying she likes playing with dolls, running, painting, etc., etc., etc., and that she wants to be an engineer when she grows up. Ten months later, she sent another letter.

Saying she wants to be a secretary.

What are they doing to her?

Ryder!

So Liza finally sent new photos of Ryder, whom, you'll recall, a coworker found darting around in rush hour traffic on Ryders Lane earlier this year...

New Fiver pics!

I solicit new pictures about once a year from the lady who adopted Fiver. She wrote back that "he's still as fantastic as ever." OBVIOUSLY. He's the awesomest.

I gave him to her three years ago Nov. 1, which makes him nearly 3½ years old. So weird. Anyway he continues to look happy. And sexy.

Yawning cat!

Suchaslut.

Being the cutest cat on the bed.

Sleeeepy.

He's so shiny. Why isn't A.M. shiny like that?

Fiver's mom is pregnant with her first child, and Fiver has become all snuggly with her. Apparently he likes babies? You'd think I would have rubbed off more on him...

And new Mattie pictures are coming -- I've just been too lazy to upload them from my phone.

Scalia is back in the lead

So as you may be able to tell, I periodically read Supreme Court oral arguments to break up the monotony of whatever notes I'm typing or story I'm writing.

Scalia has regained the lead for his question today in Crawford v. Metro, the case out of Nashville in which an employer argued a woman who spoke out in an internal sexual harassment investigation is not protected under Title VII because she did not file a "formal complaint." (cert petition here)

Well the justices were peppering the attorney arguing for Crawford, posing all these hypotheticals about what would and wouldn't be protected under Title VII.

And Scalia takes it here:

What if -- what if I am indeed very much in favor of sexual harassment? I am a world class sexual harasser, but I'm also not a liar, and I'm -- I am subpoenaed or called up by the employer in connection with this internal investigation and asked whether so-and-so harassed a particular worker. And I'd say, yes, as a matter of fact, he did, and a good thing too.
Is that expressing opposition?

I Gant think of a witty headline for this (that's right, I went to Lameland, but you're the one reading the blog, Lame-o)

From today's oral argument in Arizona v. Gant, the case where Arizona said its police officers can conduct a warrantless search of someone's car after that person has already been cuffed. (Fatty wanted a blog mention, so I'm giving it to her here. Keep reading, Fatty. It's more than a synopsis of a Supreme Court case.) Arguing for Arizona, Joseph Maziarz said the person who is cuffed in the back of the squad car could still pose a threat to the officers.

The oral arguments made me laugh. I usually like Scalia's comments, but Souter wins this one:

MR. MAZIARZ: In -- in our reply brief we pointed out in 2007 there were 93 reported cases where arrestees cuffed in the back of a patrol car escaped. So it -- it's very possible this could happen. Now, you have to know --

JUSTICE SOUTER: Do you know of any one of those cases in which the officer got hurt? Do you know of any one of those cases in which the person who got out of the police cruiser made a beeline for -- for his own car?
In fact, so far as I know, we are -- we are not even sure that those people came out of automobiles before they were put in a police cruiser. But do you know of any case in which they went to their own car and tried to get a gun to hurt the cop?

MR. MAZIARZ: In one of the cases the arrestee went to his vehicle but simply took off and led the police on a high-speed chase, but none in -- where they went to the vehicle and grabbed a weapon.

JUSTICE SOUTER: Did he -- did he have --have his hands handcuffed behind his back?

MR. MAZIARZ: Yes. Yes, he had --

JUSTICE SOUTER: And he was able to drive the car?

MR. MAZIARZ: Yes. Well, Your Honor, it's my understanding -- I'm not an expert on this, but it's my understanding from reading some of these cases --

JUSTICE SOUTER: I'd really like to meet him.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I wouldn't. I'll bet you that in most of those cases the -- the felon got out the other -- other door of the car while the policeman was searching the vehicle.

"That is not so"

I haven't heard this addressed much (after I ran a search I did find some responses, although none in the mainstream media except for on an ABC blog), so I'll post it here for you guys. Did anyone else notice that Sarah Palin made an inaccurate sweeping policy statement about McCain's stance on the subprime mortgage crisis? Biden talked about wanting to allow bankruptcy courts to adjust the principal owed on mortgages, and said he didn't believe the McCain campaign supported that. Ifill, in turn, asked Palin if Biden had McCain's stance correct.

Here's the exchange:

Biden (in essentially dodging a question about him and Obama voting differently on the bankruptcy bill):
... Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.

That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it -- I'm not sure of this, but I believe John McCain and the governor don't support that.

There are ways to help people now. And there -- ways that we're offering are not being supported by -- by the Bush administration nor do I believe by John McCain and Gov. Palin.

IFILL: Gov. Palin, is that so?

PALIN: That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus your ticket's energy ticket, also. ...

The reality is that McCain does not support allowing bankruptcy judges to readjust principal. From ABC's fact check:

The Senate has voted only once this year on legislation that would change bankruptcy laws to help distressed homeowners. John McCain was absent for that vote. Contrary to what Palin says, the McCain campaign acknowledges that he does not support those changes to bankruptcy laws.

Watching the debate, it seemed to me that Palin had no idea what Biden said -- that she either wasn't paying attention, lost focus, or just didn't get it -- and assumed she was responding to some sort of attack rather than a substantive policy question. Thoughts?

Yes, I believe the sky is blue -- but that doesn't mean I think the sky is blue

Couric: Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Palin: I think it should be a states' issue, not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: That's the cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

And Congress thought the Treasury needed oversight...

Forbes asked a spokeswoman how the Treasury arrived at the $700 billion figure. Her response?

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

From the Volokh Conspiracy:

Why not 12 gazillion?