Look, I admit I’m a law nerd. My Tenth Circuit co-clerks took sinister delight in imposing a no-talking-about-the-law-during-lunch rule on me. And I’m fairly sure I’m in the minority when I say how frustrating it is that my fellow habeas-conference attendees don’t want to hash out the interplay between 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1) during the breaks between sessions.
But, still. I can’t be the only one who finds the jousting between Ginsburg, Alito, and Kagan in Yates v. United States today hugely entertaining. Right?
[Update: right. Professor Berman over at Sentencing Law & Policy gushes “Amazing stuff.”]
In dissent, Justice Kagan cites Dr. Seuss, “One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish” for the proposition that a red grouper (fish) is a kind of “tangible object” within the meaning of 18 USC 1519. The majority, of course, disagrees.
If I were a law professor, I’d propose a semester-long course on Yates. What a great case.
On a more mundane note, I wanted to know whether the fish were still alive when he threw them back.
Allegedly threw them back. I don’t trust the agents to have counted the fish correctly either time.