I just read the Gelman-Bash III information.

To quote Zane Lamprey of Three Sheets fame, I just threw up in my mouth, a lot.

Did Stevie Weevie wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

3:01, please sign me up for your anti-Gelman-Bash III club. Just the picture makes my hands feel cold and clammy--the ostentatious displayage of the hand with the rock, the way her neck is all crooked with her head smashed underneath his chin (is she actually taller than him and scrunching herself up, like Katie Holmes?), and his pale, dead-looking, Scalia-idolizing eyes, it's all too much. Their resumes top it off--it's like she has made sure, in each stage of her life, to do a teeny bit worse than him (cum laude, but not summa, clerking for the same judge but a year later) so as to protect his delicate manhood. Yarrrrrrf.

Oh, and I love Ho-Griggs--adorable! I want to eat them up!

Not to detract from this extremely interesting post about weddin's, but I hear from reliable sources that the clerkship bonus at O'Melveny is now at 50K. Pass it along.

I'm glad LEWW included a gay couple this time ... but that means they're fair game now.

"John Evans Alexander and John Smith Lipsey affirmed their partnership last evening at Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. Rabbi Lisa Edwards and the Rev. Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest, led the commitment ceremony."

This is so wrong on so many levels:

1. Instead of going to Massachusetts to get legally married, or VT, NJ, or CT to get civilly unionized, they settled for a stupid "commitment ceremony?

2. The Walt Disney Concert Hall looks like the Iron Giant vomited all over the streets of L.A. - and as designed, it caused major problems with buildings in its vicinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall

3. They apparently couldn't make up their minds as to whether to have a Jewish or an Episcopal ceremony, so they had both?

Gelman-Bash are fucking disgusting.

John Bash's eyes -- they burn!

What's that 7 doing with that 2? Guess a SCOTUS clerkship is worth +5 attractive points.

this is all very embarrassing.

So much jealousy in these comments.

could gelman-bash be more hateful? odds of the marriage lasting longer than 5 years - 10:1.

Gelman only looks "fox[y]" because she is standing next to Bash, who looks like complete tool.

Also, the all sevens thing loses them about 25 points for lack of creativity; it's not the sign of an overachiever, but rather a dullard.

As for plummy jobs, I'd rather be dragged through a field of glass, dipped in salt, and then thrown into a pool of rubbing alcohol than have to look at that sweaty, obese intellectual fraud on a daily basis, let alone help him in his quest to defile the world.

4:00: the fuel might be jealousy, but that doesn't make the comments any less accurate.

is there no better gay legal eagle wedding to feature. it was a strawman that had no chance of winning!

How was Gelman eligible to participate in a law review competition at a school she wasn't attending?

a more boring group of soft people you'll be hard pressed to find.

Ignoring the smiles in the top photo, it looks like she's trying to push him away and he has her in a bear hug. Nice hump, BTW.

Harvard Law school's policy is that transfers can only make the law review if they do the law review competition with everybody else. Therefore, if you are thinking of transferring you need to do the competition before you even know if the school has accepted you.

4:09: "intellectual fraud"

Yeah, buddy. You're Larry Tribe, Clarence Darrow and Alex Kozinski wrapped up into one. That's why you have the clout to make astoundingly stupid comments like that.

the non-stop ass-kissing of SCOTUS clerks just has to stop. i don't see the allure there. while i've never met one in person, this site is making me hate them preemptively.

Zina? Zina? What the hell kind of name is that? Might as well name her Xanthippe.

"This groom is about to start the very plummiest of plummy legal jobs: a clerkship for Justice Antonin Scalia!"

Er, no. Clerking for Mr. Sweaty is not exactly what I would call a "plum", even if it means a nice Biglaw bonus.

Well, Ho/Griggs wins the cute couple award, by far. Ho: beautiful now, with looks that will likely continue to impress as she ages (she's the one who deserves LEWW's "extreme foxiness" and "beauty" compliments). Same for Griggs: he is cute now, and will likely be considered very handsome in 10 years.

Wish I had a photo of John + John so I could throw them into the mix, but my vote on this one would have been couple no. 3 (but that's because I'm lookist and because I like to be around interesting people who carve their own path).

freak central

I, too, wish there was a John + John photo. I have to vote for couple 3 since their photo is the closest to meeting the NY Times eyebrow requirement.

"could gelman-bash be more hateful? odds of the marriage lasting longer than 5 years - 10:1."

Um... you do know that those are really good odds, right? As in, you are saying it is ten time more likely that their marriage will last longer than 5 years than not?

Maybe that's what you meant, but I suspect it is yet another case of math illiteracy by a Poli. Sci. or History B.A.

Agree that Bash-Gelman had to win, but also agree that I feel a little icky about them.

What is it that creeps me out?

i didn't make that post -- but odds in ratio format such as 10:1 mean that there is a 1 in 10 chance of the event happening (or 10:1 against, same thing)-- in this case the marriage lasting longer than 5 years. It doesn't mean that it is 10x more likely an event will occur (those would be 1:10 odds). Ratio odds are betting against an event. You don't go to the racetrack very often, I assume.

Wonderful display of liberal rage in all its ugliness.

3:36: If there is a couple here who could properly be characterized as "fucking disgusting", it most certainly is not the one you are thinking of. If you catch my drift...

4:09: If by "defile the world" you mean apply the law as it is, rather than impose his own activist political preferences.

4:34: Next time you post flame to get people's reactions, avoid using words like "by far". In this case, that would have left open the possibility that you really meant what you said (and just have poor taste).

4:57: The fact that they do not share your political opinions is "creepy." How open minded of you.

I do not necessarily object to featuring homosexuals in LEWW as a matter of principle, but am I the only one who is uncomfortable with this blatant use of affirmative action for homosexuals?

Compare the credentials of John-John v. John-Zina and it really is embarrassing for the liberals.

Zina is fantastic. I went to school with her. She is very nice. Anyhow, back to the Bar Exam.

Zina is fantastic. I went to school with her. She is very nice. Anyhow, back to the Bar Exam.

Fed Soc (5:10) = Odds Maker (4:49)?

Both equally intelligent posts.

"but I suspect it is yet another case of math illiteracy by a Poli. Sci. or History B.A."

Wow, you just got your ass handed to you. Perhaps you should find some less popular majors to pick on, especially if alleged "math literacy" is the name of your high horse.

Here is a study guide next time you want to show off your B.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds

Pathetic.

3:33-
1: CA has domestic partnerships, which are the same, for all intents and purposes, as VT/CT/NJ civil unions.
2: Couldn't agree more.

Dear Fed Soc:

No, I really do think that Couple No. 3 is the better looking couple by a landslide (or 2 landslides). Has nothing to do with any couple's politics, simply their looks.

Love,
4:34

Fed Soc: I would say your post is a wonderful display of conservatism in all its ugliness...but what else is there? If there is one person on this board who could properly be characterized as "fucking disgusting," it most certainly is not the nice gay couple in LA. If you catch my drift...

Wouldn't 10:1 indicate that there is a 1 in 11 chance of the event occuring?

can anyone seriously take those fags as more than window dressing?

Is it more pathetic that this feature has turned into a vehicle for fascists to gay-bash or that it even exists and champions these people who are generally colossal douchebags in the first place?

I get that this blog is kind of right-wing and rahrah military/Catholic/self-hating/conservative/lame SCOTUS justices, but can you give it a rest at some point? Never thought that I would long for a fat, pasty TTT lawyer commentator over this.

seriously, people, 12:19 is right. all of the puerile gay-bashing, pretentious politicizing, and general colossal douchebaggery obscures the very pertinent fact that Laurie Lin has reported on an honest-to-god case of WGWAG in all of its profoundly, poignantly and perspicaciously titillating glory!

love,
me

12:19 - I thoroughly enjoy baiting liberal douchebags such as yourself. I hope you weeped in your buttboy's arms about all the hatred that is out there in the world . . .

6:44: I can only infer that you also believe that Rosie O'Donnell and Hillary Clinton are more attractive than Laura Ingraham (but not for political reasons, of course). Case closed.

12:19: Have you been reading a completely different blog? All I see in the comments is various gratuitious, vile, hateful comments directed at the conservative couple, for no comprehensible reason whatsoever. And did you really just criticize a blog that prominently (and approvingly) feature a homosexual couple in its wedding announcements for being "conservative" and "Catholic"?

Also, you used the word "fascist." You sound well-adjusted.

(1) Assuming for a moment that Above the Law has shown itself to be pro-"Catholic" (which is an unfounded statement to begin with) -- why would this be such a bad thing?

(2) It's hilarious that any web site that is not all-PC and all-leftist all the time is, without fail, labeled "conservative" by the PC/leftist crowd.

(3) More importantly... looks are at issue, and on that basis only, # 3 wins over # 1.

I think you mean #1 wins over #3 on the basis of looks. Though even if #3 were to win on the basis of looks, no difference in looks could make up for #1's infinitely better credentials and #1 would still win.

Pro-Catholic? Where are you people getting this?

This is why Liberals scare the crap out of people--they're shrill. Anytime something smacks of breaking with their orthodoxy, they throw every label they can at the perpetrator--Catholic, militaristic, Fascist (for God sake, come up with something a little less hackneyed), hatemonger, etc. What a joke.

2:37 -

isn't it funny how similar that sounds to how the Nazis operated? Just observing...

4:30: I have to agree. Everyone knows that SCOTUS clerkships are probably the least merit-based gig any lawyer can get. I've met several and, to put in mildly, I'm just not that impressed.

What's with the Scalia love? Are people really convinced that he follows a consistent and intelligent methodology to applying the Constitution? Why is it that "public opinion" doesn't matter for constitutionaly analysis for him in Atkins v. Virginia in analyzing death penalty for mentally retarded, but is extremely important for him in Lawrence v. Texas when analyzing public opinions of gays? Why are state rights and limited federal jurisdiction so crucial in most cases, but when a Republican presidency is at stake, "it's screw the states, we're stepping in" (Bush v. Gore). It's the disingenuousness of his "analysis" that is the most revolting. Just admit what you are doing, Tony: using the constitution to avail your bigotry.

Also, I am quite impressed by how vociferously anti-gay many posters are...I wonder if they would have the courage to make some of these statements without the shroud of anonymity.

2:37: you are SO right! excuse me, though, I need to get back to my communist, terrorist-supporting, fanatical, liberal loony, anti-American, unpatriotic, hippie life now.

2:37: you are SO right! excuse me, though, I need to get back to my communist, terrorist-supporting, fanatical, liberal loony, anti-American, unpatriotic, hippie life now.

3:27: I don't recall engaging in any name calling. Be that as it may, in your experience, can you seriously say that Conservatives, let's say those you knew in law school, engaged in the same degree of name-calling, forced orthodoxy and constant indignation than the Liberals you knew? I doubt it.

I'm not 3:27, but the conservatives at my school certainly did the name-calling, forced orthodoxy and constant indignation thing very well and far more often.

I'm apolitical but very bemused about how annoying knee-jerk legal conservatism is the new annoying knee-jerk legal liberalism.

3:22 - those are simplistic, and mischaracterized, comparisons. Public opinion is irrelevant when determining substantive constitutional rights, but relevant when determining a rational basis for legislation. State rights and limited federal jurisdiction are crucial in appropriate cases, but inappropriate when Aritcle II is involved, or when certain incorporated amendments are involved (e.g., the right to confrontation cases "screw the states"). Painting Scalia with simplistic and incorrect broad strokes is entirely unhelpful when criticizing him.

5:06: Interesting. I actually consdider myself a moderate, moved to the right by erstwhile friends who considered some of my views as breaches of group orthodoxy. Incidentally, I think I would be labeled a Liberal in 2/3's of this country, but in law school I was a branded as a (suspicious) Conservative for holding such "far right" views as believing that at a certain point in a fetus' life abortion was indefinsible and that the US Govt. wasn't the greatest threat to human rights in the world. In any event, I agree with your assessment: the far right and far left share more similarities than they think--they're both pigheaded and doctrinaire (though I may disagree the extent to which one segment resembles the other).

I'm not sure which is funnier: Anon 3:22's classless use of a Supreme Court Justice's first name, or his woefully uninformed use of "Tony" to describe Justice Scalia. There is only one Justice who goes by "Tony," and it isn't Justice Scalia.

Seriously, how dare someone refer to a Supreme Court Justice by his first name? Next thing you know, they'll be questioning political leaders and condemning our disdain for minority groups.

As for Gelmand and Bash, since when did making fun of a goofy looking dude with a suffix of "III" in his name become so political? I would think that, regardless of party affiliation, we could all enjoy the sophomoric pasttime of taking cheap shots at successful yet awkward-looking people like Team Harvard up there. Loosen up dudes.

3:22 - "Why are state rights and limited federal jurisdiction so crucial in most cases, but when a Republican presidency is at stake, 'it's screw the states, we're stepping in' (Bush v. Gore)"

Thanks for making sure we knew what case you were talking about. I don't think I would have figured it out otherwise.

And now, to run the extreme risk of pointing out something that was probably obvious to everyone after mocking another for doing it, 6:16's response to the "math genius" who goofed up the statistics was classic: "Here is a study guide next time you want to show off your B.S."

Funny in so many ways.... I love this place

Couple #3 is SO much hotter than #1.

I actually think Mr. Bash is very good-looking...certainly near the top of HLS in attractiveness

5:38: Your right, it's just coincidence that Nino's personal biases always seem vindicated by the Constitution as if he and Hamilton were of one mind.

Nino is so arrogant that he has the audacity to question the Pope as to what the Catholic Church's stance on the death penalty is. He should be ex-communicated for that, and also for his francofied version of the name Antonio...I mean, Antonin? It doesn't roll of the tongue, that's for sure.

As for the merits of the competition, I don't read the anti-Gelman/Bash posts as having anything to do with the fact that the couple is (supposedly conservative. It's the fact that they are cheesy (the all sevens thing), grosteque (that pose makes me want to barf), and horribly mismatched (it's so obvious...he's like a 2, 3 tops).

Also, and this might really be the heart of it, it looks like some sort of power couple alliance and not true love. And that, my friends, is the saddest thing of all. :-(

Stop it, guys! I totally married him for love...it's not because I am mediocre at everything I do and need to marry some fugly guy who's really really really smart and stuff to make myself feel better!

The posts at 1:27 PM and 1:33 PM are as despicable as any that I've seen on these pages.

3:27: How dare an atheist like you go around saying who should or should not be excommunicated from the Catholic Church? If you knew anything about Catholic theology, you would know that good Catholics can and do disagree on issues like the death penalty, just like they can hold different positions on immigration, fiscal policy or the War on Terror. The death penalty is not like abortion or homosexuality in that respect. Aside even from that, have you ever taken a look at all the self-proclaimed "Catholics" -- John Kerry, Ted and Anthony Kennedy, the list goes on -- whose political stances make a mockery of everything that the Church stands for (including, importantly, respect for life). I guess they should be allowed to receive communion in your book.

And once again, Justice Scalia's personal "biases" are NOT "vindicated" by the Constitution. No doubt the Justice's ideal Constitution would ban abortion and sodomy, among other things. Unlike the left-wing activists, he does not seek to argue that the Constitution reflects his policy preferences (which would mean saying that it does in fact ban abortion and sodomy), he only says that the Constitution is silent on these issues.

3:11: As despictable, but not more so -- they are just typical of the hatred that Leftists spew every single day on this site.

1:27: The reason why the non-haters among us say that criticism of Gelman-Bash is political is that it is so fundamentally absurd and incoherent that it can only be driven by sheer political animosity.

For instance, you saying that the couple is "horribly mismatched" when both attended Harvard undergrad, Harvard Law School, AND the Harvard Law Review, both clerked for the same judge, and both presumably share the same pro-American, pro-family values that are obviously asinine (at best) from your leftist perspective. Any normal person's obvious reaction would be that they are unusually well-matched. Your accusation that they are some kind of fake power couple would be ridiculous in any context (one would expect successful people to prefer marrying each other than marrying losers like you), but is particularly ridiculous in the LEWW context considering that virtually every couple featured here involves people with impressive credentials.

Fed Soc: Wow, I thought we didn't like name-calling, but now I am an "atheist" and full of "Leftist[]" "hatred." Hyprocisy is kinda neat, isn't it? I don't know what kinda of Catholicism you are reading up on, but the death penalty is disallowed for the same reason abortion is: they involve ending a life. Indeed, no true Christian can support the death penalty because it is premised on "eye for an eye" (some courts even use this language during voir dire to find out if jurors support the death penalty). In the New Testament, Jesus explicitly said "eye for an eye" is no longer the rule, but instead we must "turn the other cheek." Self-proclaimed Christians that support the death penalty just engage in selective reading of the Bible; the same selective reading they accuse liberal Christians of engaging in.

I think you might be embarassing your federal society friends with comments like "No doubt the Justice's ideal Constitution would ban abortion and sodomy, among other things." Since when does the Constitution even work that way? As for the "silence" on those issues...it doesn't matter what you call it, the result is the same: states get to "ban" away.

All I am saying re: the Bash's is that she is conpicuously lower than him in every way, and as for her clerkship, it's hard to imagine that she got that without his help, otherwise, it's a really big coinkydink (sp?).

Unless you are opposed to homosexual unions, Gelman and Bash are the obvious couple for a pack of anonymous commenters to be nasty about: they're extremely successful in conspicuous ways, and naturally ATL highlights those aspects of a couple most likely to bring out the envious loathing of its audience. I'd be shocked only if any one of the commenters had dared to say such things under their real names. ATL wouldn't get 50+ comments if Lin had dwelled on Gelman's volunteer work, for example. The comments are far less about politics than about making the commenters feel better about themselves. See schadenfreude.

As for the coincidence, Kavanaugh picked three of his '07-'08 clerks from Gibson Dunn's DC office -- where both Bash and Gelman have been summers. I suppose 05:05PM will now advance the theory that Bash convinced Kavanaugh to take not only Gelman, but also her work friends, based purely on Bash's recommendation rather than on merit and conservative credentials (hello, recommendation from Ted Olson).

5:02 - as a clarification, as far as I know, opposition to the death penalty is not part of the official dogma of the Catholic church. i.e. the church has an official stance, but one can disagree with the Church's position and still be a Catholic. The Church's stance on abortion (in other words innocent life) and homosexuality are non-negotiable dogma.

Secondly, I think your assessment of Christian opposition to the taking of life lacks nuance. Yes, Christians are opposed to the taking of life, but not in all instances. Just war theory and preservation of life in life or death situations do not contravene Christian morality.

Finally, I think Scalia is pretty consistent when he comes to his stance on abortion and homosexuality: the Consitution is silent and therefore it's the purview of the states and political branches to determine to what degree both should be sanctioned.

5:31: And THAT recommendation was based wholly on merit. I am not sure what's more frustrating, the obsession atl (and its commenters) have with successful lawyers or the insinuation that any of this crap is in any remote way merit-based.

5:02

(1) The conservative blather about "leave it up to the states, courts are not the right place to decide" has proven itself as disingenuous gobbledy-gook. The court challenges to gay marriage rage on and Arnold cited a need for "courts to decide" the gay marriage issue when vetoing the gay marriage legislation that passed in the CA legislature. Whether Scalia is intellectually honest or just using the convenient mantra of the day will remain to be seen.

(2) I think "Chrisitans" that support the death penalty are willing to see "nuance" when it is convenient to support their personal views, but less likely to do so in other areas, homosexuality, for one. I pointed out what the Bible said, nuance away, but what you use as a sword you cannot use as a shield lest you be a hypocrite.

(3) Dogma or not, the bottom line is that it's hard for me to imagine Nino--a fiery ball of hatred and rage--passing through gates of heaven. Call me crazy.

LOL! I meant 6:08, not 5:02.

Love,

6:32

http://harvardmitjustice.thomer.com/cgi-bin/signs.cgi?type=Student

I just threw up in mouth a little.

5:02: Glad that someone else already addressed the abortion v. death penalty issue in Catholic theology.

"I think you might be embarassing your federal society friends with comments like 'No doubt the Justice's ideal Constitution would ban abortion and sodomy, among other things.'Since when does the Constitution even work that way?"

My point was just that if Justice Scalia thought that the Constitution should only reflect his policy preferences, then the Constitution would prohibit abortion and sodomy. Of course the Constitution does not work that way; conservatives are aware of that, which is why we do not argue that the Constitution prohibits these things.

"As for the 'silence' on those issues...it doesn't matter what you call it, the result is the same: states get to 'ban' away."

Not really. In Justice Scalia's ideal world, every state would prohibit abortion. In Ginsberg, Stevens et al's ideal world, no state would prohibit abortion. But by saying that the Constitution is silent on abortion, conservatives only leaves it open for the states to decide. Some states would ban abortion; others won't, the outcome would not be any more "conservative" than it would be "liberal."

"All I am saying re: the Bash's is that she is conpicuously lower than him in every way"

This is just crazy. Do you take the position that SCOTUS clerks should only marry other SCOTUS clerks? Zina's academic credentials are astounding, the fact that she may be 99.7 percentile of all lawyers rather than 99.9+ like her husband does not make them a poor match.

6:40: The Harvard/MIT Justice petition was the kind of cause that most conservatives and centrists and many moderate liberals would agree with. I am not sure what your point was other than just letting us all know how much of a moonbat you are (not to mention likely former Dean supporter).

6:33: May I respectfully suggest that you cease signing your posts with "Love" when you are addressing other individuals (presumably) of your own gender? This could lead some people to make wrong inferences about you and your lifestyle, so this is just a friendly piece of advice.

Sincerely,

Fed Soc

6:32

"(1) The conservative blather about "leave it up to the states, courts are not the right place to decide" has proven itself as disingenuous gobbledy-gook. "

In what sense? When? Where? How? In fact, I think this is the strongest argument, in terms of judicial philosphy, that the conservatives have. It sounds like you think that federalism is a joke, an outdated remnant used to justify any political end that one deems "correct." I couldn't disagree more. The thoughtful conservatives I know stand by the notion that states should decide political questions not explicitly within the federal purview. And they accept the consequences that flow therefrom.

"Whether Scalia is intellectually honest or just using the convenient mantra of the day will remain to be seen."

How can you excoriate conservatives in one breath then concede that Scalia might be principled in another? I think the point is that you suspect, but don't know or have proof, that Scalia is intellectually dishonest. Indeed, you want him to be because you don't like his outcomes. That, my friend, is in itself intellectually dishonest.

"(2) I think "Chrisitans" that support the death penalty are willing to see "nuance" when it is convenient to support their personal views, but less likely to do so in other areas, homosexuality, for one. I pointed out what the Bible said, nuance away, but what you use as a sword you cannot use as a shield lest you be a hypocrite."

I'm not going to debate Christian philosophy because 1) you can't characterize an overall "Christian" philosophy because it's so diverse and contradictory and 2) I'm not a Christian. What I was saying is that to make blanket statements like you can't be a Christian and support taking a life is an inaccurate generalization. If you're not into nuance, you're in the wrong profession.l

"(3) Dogma or not, the bottom line is that it's hard for me to imagine Nino--a fiery ball of hatred and rage--passing through gates of heaven. Call me crazy."

Okay, Crazy, what are you talking about? "Fireball of hatred and rage"? This last statement seals the deal; you just said that a SC justice can't enter the gates of heaven. Now who sounds like the raging "fireball of hatred"?

Zina and John are great people. Anyone who judges them based on actually knowing them would agree.

I also disagree with the “seamless garment” or “culture of death” argument, which links the death penalty with approval of abortion. Anyone who thinks that the elimination of capital punishment will give the abortion-prone woman second thoughts has to be delusional. The “pro-choice” American believes as much as anyone else that life-out-of-the-womb is sacred; sparing the life of a double axe-murderer is unnecessary to drive home that point. Indeed, in my experience the abortion-rights advocate, usually a liberal, is more likely to abhor the death penalty than the abortion opponent, usually a conservative. What the “pro-choice” American does not believe is that a human fetus is as fully a human life as Uncle Charlie. Eliminating the death penalty does not remotely address that issue.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2067

Bash is funny-looking

Conveniently, everyone "quoting" my statement ignored this part: "The court challenges to gay marriage rage on and Arnold cited a need for 'courts to decide' the gay marriage issue when vetoing the gay marriage legislation that passed in the CA legislature."

Love,

6:32

P.S.-what kind of Christian takes male to male love to be gay. The Bible commands us to "love our neighbor/brother"...I don't think God meant only our neighbors of the opposite sex.

You know what the best thing about this site is? Observing how lawyers (and law students) rarely seem to recognize sarcasm.

I am a HLS '06er who was in John's section first year. Sat next to him in crim law, in fact. And though we may never agree on politics (he's a Fed Soc type; I'm an uber-liberal/ACLU type), I have to say that John is a wonderful guy. He comes off as intelligent, confident, self-assured and driven - and in my experience, polite, well-spoken, and friendly. I have always respected him and wish him well in his marriage and with his SCOTUS clerkship.

I don't know Zina, but I know that John and she have been together for quite some time, and I see no reason to question whether they should be together for the asinine reasons people here have given (Questioning her HEIGHT? Assuming she deliberately didn't graduate magna to protect his ego? C'mon, people, give me a break.) I wish them many years of happiness and congratulations on their clerkships.

2:40: you sound bitter

Let the Eagle Soar:

What have you posted here that is meant to be sarcastic? What is it that we don't recognize? Please enlighten us.

2:40: you have to be polite when you're ugly; it's all you got.

3:59 PM -- I haven't. I wasn't commenting about my own posts.

2:40 here - what do I sound bitter about?

7:10 aka 2:40: it was a joke (i'm assuming; it wasn't me)

You people are ridiculous. First, FedSoc : Federalist Society :: Loyola2L : Loyola. Second, is David Lat the only person on this site with the intellectual ability to be pro-gay equality without being a left-wing partisan? Third, Zina and Bash are awesome. Fourth, to those who disparaged her relative to him--she still a lot smarter than you are, I promise.

2:23 - I assure you that this is the first and only time in their entire relationship Zina has been disparaged relative to Bash; on a 10 point scale, she is at least 9 points out of his league.

I'd hit Zina Warrior Princess in the bum and make her ride her bike home.