I am bummed that I am out of the city and so can’t participate in the celebration, but still OMG OMG SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

And yes, I told my friend she should leave work early in case the court is persuaded to impose a stay. In the meantime, you can read the entire opinion here.

• Cool architecture.
• The bench is only slightly raised, instead of being higher than God as is not uncommon in many courts. Apparently the Justices do not have something to prove.
• Their cafeteria food is actually pretty decent.
• Marble, and plenty of it.
• Just admitted Mythago to the Supreme Court bar.

Cons:

• Supreme Court gift shop contains extremely limited variety of swag.

Oh, wait, the National Organization for Marriage begs to differ:

But we take heart in knowing that this vote was not representative of what Vermonters understand marriage to be. We know that the Vermont Legislature did everything in its power to avoid allowing Vermonters to vote directly on the future of marriage.

No doubt, if Vermont had legalized same-sex marriage through a straight up popular vote of the people, these relics would bemoan how it wasn’t really the will of the people, because, oh, I dunno, homosexual lobby brainwashing satellite rays from beyond the stars? Certainly it can’t be that NOM and their ilk are losing the culture war.

They’re right about concern for their grandchildren, though. It must be a terrible thought to know, somewhere in your cramped, reptilian brain, that the kindest thing your grandkids might say about you is “they couldn’t help being like that, it was the times they grew up in”.

(h/t, Diana Peterfreund)

Judges always tell jurors not to do any research and not to talk to anyone about the case. Thankfully, most of them are happy to go along with the suggestion that they get specific about this and go beyond the boilerplate of jury pre-instructions.  Most people don’t think of Google as “research” and don’t think of Twitter as “talking to anyone”. They have to be told: do not look up anything about this case, including the parties and the attorneys, on the Internet, and that includes Google and Wikipedia; do not blog about this trial, do not email people, do not Twitter or send text messages.

And you can see that they didn’t think of it that way, because the nods at “don’t do research” turn to surprise when the judge starts reeling off exactly what that means. I’ve actually seen one person kicked off a jury because he would not agree to refrain from looking things up on the Internet about the case. The judge’s explanation that all information had to come in during the trial did not sway him; he was annoyed that anyone might put a hold on his sacred right to Google for any reason.

If you hate the idea of jury service, imagine what it would be like to put in eight weeks of time, only to have it end in a mistrial because some bozo couldn’t find anything else to talk about on his Facebook page.

Then they will recover, and beat you viciously and without mercy. Rhetorically speaking.

It is true that many people who aren’t lawyers to have a clear understanding of certain areas of the law, and are even able to talk about it intelligently. Unfortunately those people are vastly outnumbered by other people, who think that Wikipedia is a real legal resource, or who take one line in a judicial opinion out of context and think that’s what the law is.

It is also true that the law is full of different specialities and lawyers have different levels of competency. I’m not familiar enough with patent law to explain its complexities to you, either at a cocktail party or on the Internet. Likewise, don’t tell me that you fully understand product-liability law in California because you heard about it from your dad, a retired lawyer who used to do criminal cases in Massachusetts.

And for god’s sake don’t present your half-baked legal expertise as legal advice to others.

I look forward to reading the decision to see how the faux “strict constructionalists” (*cough* Scalia *cough*) explain how the Framers took Islamofacism into account to create a mystical unwritten exception to the rule.

The forces of evil will be right back at it, though. Today we party elegantly–tomorrow back in the trenches.

Edit: Lynn points out that all three branches of government are in agreement on this. Take that, pseudo-originalist whinebots!