Blind Drunk Justice, Episode 8

Well children, it’s time once again for another episode of Blind Drunk Justice.

Blinder, Drunker, Episoder Eightier

There’s a couple of groundskeeping matters on the new puzzler, so I’ll clear those things up.  Steely McShitlaw’s cell phone apparently can only tell time if it’s getting a signal from a cell phone tower, it doesn’t have an internal clock.  And, he’s doing paper doc review, not electronic doc review, and as such he doesn’t have a computer down there in Subbasement C.

And of course, some links to the shit we try to have an intelligent conversation about:

We said we’d talk about the attorney billing $3,500 an hour, but I spared you listening to the horror than ensued.

Are we drowning in a sea of legislation?

And of course, the History Channel is no place for a woman, unless you really believe women are from Venus and were brought to Peru on spaceships thousands of years ago.  Sorry, Discover Channel is better, Boomdeeyada mother fuckers!

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | savetheurl Tags: , , ,

11 Responses to “Blind Drunk Justice, Episode 8”

  1. evrenseven Says:

    I liked today’s episode of Hannity and Beck. Namby, it’s pretty clear why your career consists of making $50 traffic court appearances. Your analysis of the Snyder case and tort vs. 1st Amendment makes me wonder if you actually went to law school. CHECK YOU FALWELL V. FLYNT. That was an IIED case where the Court determined that the First Amendment doesn’t allow someone to be found liable for IIED in the case of parody of a public person. This is a novel question of whether the First allows liability against the behavior of the Phelps clan against a private individual. In any event, it’s clearly a First issue, because it’s the court that upholds the $4M verdict, and it’s going to be sheriffs that seize property that has liens against it placed there by another court to satisfy the judgment (i.e., lots and lots of government fingers in the Fred Phelps’ anus). Also, please save the “READ THE CONSTITUTION!” argument to tea partiers on their medicare funded rascal scooters.

  2. thenambypamby Says:

    The idea that this was a public person as the Church advances is a laughable idea.

  3. Bad Monkey Says:

    As a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division I have to agree.

    God does hate the legs-on-a-string, dopes-on-a-rope, or screaming chickens otherwise known as the 101st Airborne Division.

  4. bl1y Says:

    Sounds like someone had a Dick Winters forcibly shoved down his throat.

  5. joshuetree Says:

    Yeah, this week’s episode was a little Fox Newsy for me….BUT DON’T FRET, I will be here next week.

    Also, I am the other NY fan. (yes, NY lefty…so sue me)

  6. bl1y Says:

    We try to be fair, but I make no representation that either of us is balanced, or could even stand under our own power. We are a booze fest piece of humanity.

  7. Larry Says:

    I think you ought to feature good looking women for a change. How about it, bl1y, get some top twat for us to judge.

  8. bl1y Says:

    Larry, go check the Twitter feed. Search for #TweegalAdvice

  9. Aline Says:

    I think this is a great websight. I never heard about that job you posted, though.

    Are there any jobs available in your hometown?

  10. shadow_hand Says:

    Re: Church, freedom of speech issue. Why wasn’t the family’s first instinct to file a tort claim instead of the freedom of speech bullshit? Take the bastards to court and bankrupt them. I don’t see how it would be too difficult for any attorney with an IQ over 90 to convince a jury that the church protested with the intent to commit extreme emotional distress.

  11. bl1y Says:

    I think the family brought the IIED claim, but the Church is claiming first amendment rights to prevent the state from enforcing the judgment.

Leave a Reply