ET TU CLARENCE?

UPDATE: There's a new blog in town called Kosher Meatball law blog.

And of course, running the preeminent "go-to" legal blog in Miami as we do, the noodles at the meatball blog are trying to curry favour with us by re-printing some of our recent blog rumblings. While we much would have preferred them coming to us, hat in hand (electronically) and asking permission to run a blog in what is clearly our town, in the interest of benign neglect, we decided to give them a plug. Pull up a chair, put on a bib, and manga. (The meatballs go great with some nice mozzarella sprinkled on top. Give it a try.)

Justice Clarence Thomas is an individualist. He does not believe in affirmative action. As a strict constructionist conservative, Justice Thomas believes in the primacy of the individual. The United States was created as a government of the people and government's role is limited at best. Justice Clarence Thomas believes that merit and talent should be the only factors in which an individual is promoted. Ethnicity, race, or anything other than the particular qualities of the individual should not apply. His opinions make all of the above perfectly clear.

At the Utah State Bar convention, Justice Thomas had this to say:

Thomas said his biggest concern is the Ivy League composition of the court and its lack of regional representation. The current court has five justices from the New York/New Jersey area, two from California, one from Georgia and one from Indiana.

“Does that sound like this country?” he asked.

Hmm....sounds like Justice Thomas wants to see the geographical location of a particular individual weighed against the makeup of the court as a consideration for nomination.

To put it more bluntly, it seems as if Justice Thomas would want to see a less talented Judge from lets say Oregon nominated to the Supreme Court over a more talented individual who graduated from Yale, if the court at the time was comprised of "eastern intellectuals."

Not necessarily the thoughts of an individualist. More like the thoughts of a collectivist statist whose particular ox has been gored. For shame Justice Thomas.

TRIAL UPDATES:

State v. Sutton is going to the jury. Final arguments were heard Tuesday. This is a compelling case where the trigger man testified that the son of Coral Gables attorney John Sutton hired him to kill his parents. John Sutton survived the attack, but he was permanently disfigured. His wife was murdered. Carin Kahgan and Kathleen Hoague for the prosecution and Bruce Fleisher for the defense. This is going to be a tough one, and we're not looking for a verdict on Wednesday. Perhaps Thursday, and a little birdie whispered to us that the prosecution is worried.

US v. Blagojevich: This one is less worrisome for the prosecution, as the tapes against the former Governor have been damming. Crude and vulgar comments mixed in with petty personal concerns have the loudmouth Chicago Pol (whose first name is actually Milorad) on the ropes. His brother who is charged in five of the 25 counts took the stand and was eviscerated on cross by the prosecution. The taped evidence against his brother is much less compelling than against the former governor. That's why our Chi-town spies are telling us that despite months of bragging about his upcoming testimony the defense team headed by the spectacular team of Sam Adam, Jr., and his father Sam Adam Sr., are working hard to keep their loquacious client off the stand. One problem- the defense made a spectacular error in promising the jury in opening statement that their client would testify.

Runpole's seventh rule of defense: Never ever ever tell the jury your client will testify. Never. Ever. You can never be sure how a trial will turn out, and if you are certain your client will testify there is no reason to let the prosecution know that. Keep them in the dark as long as possible. The only exception to this rule is.....NONE. Never ever ever ever tell the jury in opening statement that your client will testify.