Episode 21: New Yorkers Lose Minds Over Bottomless Mimosas Because Everyone Stinks at Statutory Interpretation
I’m alone in my home office today. Would you consider subscribing to the podcast and rating us five stars on iTunes to make me feel more connected to society?
1. Aaron Kirschenfeld points us to a Tweet by Arthur Lien who sketched a protest that happened at SCOTUS during patent arguments the other day. The man who’s now been identified by Reuters as Noah Newkirk from LA shouted, “Money is not speech,” “Corporations are not people,” and “Overturn Citizens United” before being promptly escorted out of the courthouse by police. This is reportedly the first outburst like this in nine years. (Which in my opinion is pretty impressive and perhaps says something about the respect for the supreme judiciary?)
2. Earlier this week the entire city of New York lost its mind when the New York City Hospitality Alliance announced there was a law on the books making bottomless brunch drinks illegal. I’m actually still seeing articles published talking about this. Amusingly, it seems like someone jumped the gun and forgot to read to the end of the statute. Here’s the statute via Fastcase:
Unlimited drink offerings prohibited. 1. No licensee, acting individually or in conjunction with one or more licensees, shall:
(a) offer, sell, serve, or deliver to any person or persons an unlimited number of drinks during any set period of time for a fixed price.
3. With respect to an individual licensee, this section shall not apply to . . . a package of food and beverages where the service of alcoholic beverages is incidental to the event or function.
(Emphasis added.) This is why 1Ls should really start opting for statutory interpretation as an elective over criminal procedure.
3. Kat Chow brings this article to our attention, which discusses whether Google Hangout is going to be the killer app for lawyers. Spoiler alert: Noooooooo.
4. The ABA Journal shares a weird story whereby a Florida high school student was arrested for sexual assault and jailed for 35 days before someone realized the police meant to arrest the other high school student by the same name. Four police officers were disciplined as the department said the oversight would have been discovered if protocols were followed. Specifically, little things like showing pictures of the suspects to their accusers to make sure it’s the right person before they’re arrested. It will probably be apparent in the ‘cast that my mind is blown with this story.
As always, please take note of our subreddit at reddit.com/r/thelawreview. Feel free to submit stories there or vote on the stories you’d like to hear us discuss that day. You can also email us at podcast /at fastcase /dot com.
Thanks for listening!