<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Scotus140: Supreme Court Twitter competition	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:16:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: A.W.		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-86589</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A.W.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=16722#comment-86589</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[joe

i stand corrected.  mind you the due process argument is silly, which is probably why i forgot about it in the first place, but its there.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>joe</p>
<p>i stand corrected.  mind you the due process argument is silly, which is probably why i forgot about it in the first place, but its there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Joe Zwers		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-86584</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe Zwers]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=16722#comment-86584</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A.W.

Loving was both due process and equal protection. From part II of the decision: &quot;These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.&quot;
I considered using &quot;equal protection,&quot; but felt that &quot;due process,&quot; since it was shorter, better mimicked the original statement.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A.W.</p>
<p>Loving was both due process and equal protection. From part II of the decision: &#8220;These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.&#8221;<br />
I considered using &#8220;equal protection,&#8221; but felt that &#8220;due process,&#8221; since it was shorter, better mimicked the original statement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: A.W.		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-86574</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A.W.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:22:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=16722#comment-86574</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Joe

Actually it was the equal protection clause.  but otherwise a decent riff.

my caption for Loving v. Virginia:

&quot;Virginia against against love and Loving.  Love and Loving wins.  Virginia is (now) for lovers.&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe</p>
<p>Actually it was the equal protection clause.  but otherwise a decent riff.</p>
<p>my caption for Loving v. Virginia:</p>
<p>&#8220;Virginia against against love and Loving.  Love and Loving wins.  Virginia is (now) for lovers.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Joe Zwers		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-86553</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe Zwers]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=16722#comment-86553</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Loving v. Virginia - Yes, Virginia, there is a Due Process Clause.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Loving v. Virginia &#8211; Yes, Virginia, there is a Due Process Clause.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jim Collins		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-86550</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Collins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:49:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=16722#comment-86550</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Gonzales v. Castle Rock-You&#039;re on your own.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gonzales v. Castle Rock-You&#8217;re on your own.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Todd Rogers		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-86543</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Todd Rogers]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=16722#comment-86543</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m twitterless as well but... 
Terry v. Ohio - Actin&#039; squirrely can get you frisked, surely.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m twitterless as well but&#8230;<br />
Terry v. Ohio &#8211; Actin&#8217; squirrely can get you frisked, surely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: A.W.		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-86540</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A.W.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:29:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=16722#comment-86540</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[Ah, the formatting got messed up on post.  So let me try this.  Feel free to delete the original]

I am not going to make full tweets, but:

District of Columbia v. Heller.  What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

DeSteffano v. Ricci.  Soto is not such a wise latina.

Cooper v. Aaron.  You know that thing in Brown?  We meant it.

Roe v. Wade.  We have discovered a new right in the penumbra of our collective hindquarters.

Miranda v. Az.  The 5th A requires cops to use specific script we discovered almost two hundred years after enactment.

Brandenburg v. Ohio.  Yes, you can speak freely.  You can even vaguely suggest you are going to kill us.  This is not Canada.

------------------------------------------------------

These can be grouped together.

R.A.V. v. St. Paul.  Cross burning is protected speech.

Virginia v. Black.  No it is not.

Texas v. Johnson.  But you can still burn flags.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Griswold v. Connecticut.  The pursuit of happiness.

NYT v. Sullivan.  ...in which we give rise to the entire tabloid reporting industry.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.  Get a life.  Seriously, just get a life.

--------------------------------------

And these group together:

Kennedy v. La.  It’s cruel &#038; unusual to give death for raping his 8 year old daughter and rupturing wall between her vagina &#038; anus.

Dist. of Columbia v. Heller.  Kennedy v. La. is hereby mooted.

------------------------------

Okay those last two are more grim than funny, but the Kennedy decision still infuriates me, so excuse me if I vent.  (And yeah, i used heller twice.  so sue me.)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[Ah, the formatting got messed up on post.  So let me try this.  Feel free to delete the original]</p>
<p>I am not going to make full tweets, but:</p>
<p>District of Columbia v. Heller.  What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?</p>
<p>DeSteffano v. Ricci.  Soto is not such a wise latina.</p>
<p>Cooper v. Aaron.  You know that thing in Brown?  We meant it.</p>
<p>Roe v. Wade.  We have discovered a new right in the penumbra of our collective hindquarters.</p>
<p>Miranda v. Az.  The 5th A requires cops to use specific script we discovered almost two hundred years after enactment.</p>
<p>Brandenburg v. Ohio.  Yes, you can speak freely.  You can even vaguely suggest you are going to kill us.  This is not Canada.</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;</p>
<p>These can be grouped together.</p>
<p>R.A.V. v. St. Paul.  Cross burning is protected speech.</p>
<p>Virginia v. Black.  No it is not.</p>
<p>Texas v. Johnson.  But you can still burn flags.</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;</p>
<p>Griswold v. Connecticut.  The pursuit of happiness.</p>
<p>NYT v. Sullivan.  &#8230;in which we give rise to the entire tabloid reporting industry.</p>
<p>Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.  Get a life.  Seriously, just get a life.</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;</p>
<p>And these group together:</p>
<p>Kennedy v. La.  It’s cruel &amp; unusual to give death for raping his 8 year old daughter and rupturing wall between her vagina &amp; anus.</p>
<p>Dist. of Columbia v. Heller.  Kennedy v. La. is hereby mooted.</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;</p>
<p>Okay those last two are more grim than funny, but the Kennedy decision still infuriates me, so excuse me if I vent.  (And yeah, i used heller twice.  so sue me.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Another guy named Dan		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/03/scotus140-supreme-court-twitter-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-86536</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Another guy named Dan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:53:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=16722#comment-86536</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[No twitter account, but my entry would be:
Orbison v. 2 Live Crew - It&#039;s just a joke Roy, get over it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No twitter account, but my entry would be:<br />
Orbison v. 2 Live Crew &#8211; It&#8217;s just a joke Roy, get over it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
