Guy in couple #1 = HOTT. To think he's a Supreme Court clerk, too!

Uh, check out some of the other pictures on Couple # 1's wedding website...the picture presented is definitely some false advertising, esp. of the guy

yea i second 3:25 i checked out their website - i know kinda stalkerish - and he does NOT look like that in the other pictures. he's balding. and did you realize that both their parents got divorced and remarried? i think you should add that to your factors...i think all the couples this week are equally weak.

BGWWG

Concur with 3:25, and I would go further with respect to the bride - if anything, they certaintly knew which picture to choose.

Couple #1 is definitely the strongest.

Divorced parents does not cancel out two HLS grads and one SCOTUS clerkship.

why is Roberts hiring a Garland clerk anyway?

I vote for couple #3!!! My test: "who would you rather hang out with."

As for the obsession with the fact that the bride is Black, I'm not sure how that cuts, but the "whitest state" comment seemed to a little too much.

When you are married to an investment banker you don't need to earn more than a teacher.

What is with the baking theme on the gifts?

I think a more appropriate gift would be "(Buy them a life.)"

How is a director at a hedge fund "unremarkable?" The guy could buy and sell 100 SCOTUS clerks. LEWW and Lat both have this unfounded fixation on "The Elect."

Ughhhh. Per their awful website, Bec of Couple No. 1 refers to her Bridesmaids as "Sisters of Honor." T-A-C-K-Y.

Pareja 1 es impresionante en palabra escrita, pero se ven feos (especialmente en las otras fotos que salen en su website) y no ofrecen nada interesante.

Pareja 2 me aburre.

Pareja 3, sera, para mi, la pareja ganadora. Oh, y un "muffin pan" es mucho mas razonable (y util) que un "jelly roll pan" o un "cake lifter".

Dios mio!

Lat/Lin, whoever is manning the station at the moment, you need to do a post on how Dickie C is taking the reigns while GW gets poked in the anus.

What's funny about this is how the media reports this as news. As if Dick isn't always in control.

His job description says his job at the hedge fund is to "[run] a group that provides information on investments’ risks."

That hardly sounds like he's head of the whole hedge fund. It sounds relatively low-level, actually.

People hear "hedge fund" and they think "millionaire," but that's really not the case.

I think the interracial couple deserves it more. Much more interesting.

The whole obsession with these prestige type wedding announcements in the NY Times etc is so hilarious.

These people are so insecure it is laughable.

Maine to $190!!!

LEWW is hilarious. My faves:

"the real happiest day of his life -- when he'll report for work at One First Street as a clerk for Chief Justice Roberts!"

"The chest hair of the Elect is just the faintest bit silkier than that of the average man, no?"

"The only suspense here is how long Bec's bikini top stayed on after that photo was snapped."

Indeed, my chest hair is quite silky.

Anonimo, estoy de acuerdo contigo!

3:57: You're not really Anton, are you? Shouldn't you be on your honeymoon?

I call for a readjusting of priorities, if not a recount. These is no way that any SCOTUS clerkship or dual Harvard degrees can outweigh the inherent trashiness of that picture. The only problem is that no other couple even qualifies - no other two-lawyer couples. In a weak week I'll give it to them, but come on: if you saw that pic on your new hire's Facebook page, you'd stick him in the closet doing doc review and pray he didn't embarrass himself in front of a client.

Girl #1 is by far the best looking of the three. Considering what her guy looks like in the other pictures, I don't know how he landed her.

Anton looks like a tool.

After consideration, I take back what I said about Anton and apply it 10-fold to Sam Alcott.

look at the other pictures of Anton from their wedding page. . . he is so hideously ugly that i threw-up a little in my mouth. and these are the pictures the thought were his best!

i think we need reanalysis here by ATL.

Is there protocol for when the picture used to judge the couple is so completely inaccurate? This couple got hot points where they should not have received them!

I dunno, if sunglasses and a backwards baseball cap are all it takes to transform you into a mega-hunk... a lot of guys would take that deal.

But CJ Roberts probably won't let him go shirtless in chambers.

You people underestimate the hot-factor of intelligence and wit. As a woman, I'd take that over "photogenic" any day.

Actually, I take my comment back as well. He's not skeezy, he's just using the baseball cap and sunglasses to hide his colossal forehead, likely necessary to fit his giant telekinetic brain.

"Really, Sam? You couldn't think of a more interesting place? Huh."

LOVE Laurie Lin.

goldieq--anton was scheduled to clerk for roberts on the dc circuit when roberts got the nod for SCOTUS, so anton ended up clerking for garland instead at the last minute. now he'll finally clerk for roberts as planned--so in a sense, roberts hired his own clerk (i.e., someone he had vetted and chosen), not so much a garland clerk.

Bec was hot in law school. Go easy on her.

Bec's mom kicked ass in law school. (NYU '79)

Bec's mom kicked ass in certain other ways as well :)

I hold pretend dog weddings immediately before having my dogs executed.

This guy is a tool- His career and marriage will end in discrace when he is featured on a Dateline episode of "To Catch a Predator".

Take heart Mike- the Gov't does not likely have vidoe of you at a dog fight. The case is likely built on the word of the crackhead degenerates that attended your events- Reasonable Doubt for sure! take it to em!

Take heart Mike- the Gov't does not likely have video of you at a dog fight. The case is likely built on the word of the crackhead degenerates that attended your events- Reasonable Doubt for sure! take it to em!

Santa Fe to minimum wage!

Is anyone else at all bothered by how horrifically non-compliant with the NYT photo policy Team Powers-Bennion's photo is?

To anal at 7:20 - That photo is from their execrable website, not from the NYT. Please, the Times has SOME standards.

Here's a question for the amateur sociologists out there.

We now have the brand new feature of LEWW thanks to David and Laurie. And we have gawker's shameless rip-off of LEWW -- all in the last six months. Are we coming perilously closer to the day when sending in your Times wedding announcement become ... tacky and embarrassing?

I have a relatively decent resume, but ... I'd feel like I looked like a roaring, out of control douchebag if I announced my wedding and all my alleged "accolades" in the Times. Particularly when I know it's up for snarky evaluation and critique on websites everyone reads.

Is it going to become like, say, one's alumni newsletter? Where you can politely mention your marriage or child birth, but loudly announcing your clerkships or prestigious jobs is considered bad form?

I mean, WHY do these announcements even exist? So people can scream about their clerkships or Ivy degree? It's shameless self-congratulation, isn't it?

I can see it becoming, with the advent of snarky website coverage adding to the whole Times wedding section experience, "Oh, OF COURSE Suzie Doe sent her announcement into the Times. She's SO in love with herself."

What say you?

6:56 -- You are a disgustingly perverse person for making this kind of unfounded insinuation anonymously. Are you bitter because of your inability to make the Harvard Law Review, or your failure to even get into HLS in the first place?

8:33, normal, well-educated people who are not obsessive anti-elitists tend to think that it is inspiring to read about people with impressive accomplishments. No doubt there are quite a few people who are bitter at their position in life and read LEWW primarily to poke fun at people who are more successful than they are, but I don't think that these people are a majority of LEWW's readership.

Well said 8:58! I thought last week's winners were an amazing and accomplished couple; I could not believe some of the things that were said about them in the comments. I guess it's jealousy. But I think most people do take LEWW/NY Times announcements for what they are, and can actually feel happiness for the successful couples here.

8:33: You are acting like something new has happened here. The Times only announces the wedding of people with the requisite accolades, and even more gag-inducing, people who are relatively accolade-less, but whose parents run in the "right circles." It is really an announcement of socialites for socialites or socialite-gawkers. It is for this reason that my fiancee and I have decided to avoid the entire Times nonsense even though both of us have the pedigree and resume to "get in;" needless to say, BOTH of our parents are pissed and we might not avoid (a pictureless) mention.

Will everyone just do me ONE TINY LITTLE favor? Stop pretending that SCOTUS (or circuit court) clerkships are somehow handed out on the basis of merit, that NY Times wedding announcements are just random and not based on pedigree, and that money and/or lineage (not pure merit) isn't what gets you a Harvard/Yale/Stanford education in most cases!

(Before claims that I'm bitter surface, note that I went to one of those schools, was on law review/journal, and have a "prestigious" circuit clerkship lined up.)

"normal, well-educated people who are not obsessive anti-elitists tend to think that it is inspiring to read about people with impressive accomplishments."

Please! You think people send in announcements to "inspire others"? They send it in to look like hot shit! This isn't 1927 -- i highly doubt they are sending them in so that Great Aunt Tilly's sewing circle can be made aware of a family union!

There is no difference between this and wearing the Yale tee shirt in the gym. It's bragging, pure and simple.

And I do think the existence of tongue-in-cheek blog dissection of these posts change the game and make the act a little more humiliating.

I mean, when it's in the august Times in stately black and white print, surrounded by other shining examples of upstanding citizen coupledom, it somehow seems less gauche.

But when you know it's going to be plastered all over the blogs with an amusing link to your gift registry?

Doesn't that ... change the game? Make it all seem a little more ridiculous?

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

7:50: Pay more attention yourself. The Ingber-Metlitksy photo is from their own website.

The Powers-Bennion photo did indeed run in the Times.

I knew someone who worked in the Weddings/Celebrations section of the Times and he said that more couples were rejected because they didn't follow the Times' instructions in their "applciations" than for any other reason.

As for "But CJ Roberts probably won't let him go shirtless in chambers."

Wanna bet?

No wgwags this time around? How unprogressive of Lat

How's this for a reason for submitting ones info to the Vow's section? I enjoy reading it and I especially enjoying reading it when it includes people I know. Thus, it is my duty to support it when I myself get married. All that said, I do hope that LEWW doesn't notice my announcement. Oh well.

"Thus, it is my duty to support it when I myself get married."

You expect us to believe that you enjoy a ... NEWSPAPER FEATURE so much that you'd be willing to publicly humiliate yourself and your spouse?

That can't be true. For whatever reason, you think its pros (feeling important, successful, letting acquaintances from college know of your accolades) outweigh any cons (looking tacky or pushy).

"No doubt there are quite a few people who are bitter at their position in life and read LEWW primarily to poke fun at people who are more successful than they are, but I don't think that these people are a majority of LEWW's readership."

You HONESTLY believe that? You can't see that LEWW is taking the piss?

11:21: Of course LEWW is poking fun at many of the couples on the side. I am one of those who believes that this feature is primarily about recognizing people who are particularly accomplished and/or fortunate, but even I agree that this would be less interesting if it were 100% serious praise all the time. The idea is, when people are so accomplished and/or fortunate (and recognized as such), they should be able to handle a joke or two.

Note also that while the praise is about things that really matter (school, clerkship, etc.), much of the "negative" factors is about insignificant things.

I don't really understand why there would be a debate on the meaning of LEWW. It seems clear that LEWW intentionally makes her columns interesting both for people who like to praise successful people and for people who like to bash successful people. As for what she really believes, I would think that she genuinely believes that elite credentials are generally a good thing to have, but at the same time, accomplished people shouldn't take themselves too seriously and over-obsession with elite credentials can sometimes go too far.

Does anyone actually disagree with this take?

12:21, you are correct.

Laurie,

I think the wedding of Laura Marshall Worth (descendant of Marshall, CJ) should have qualified for LEWW, as the guy she is marrying has a Bachelor in Law from the University of Melbourne. I think that's an LLB, and isn't it the rough equivalent of a JD (at least I am pretty sure it would make him eligible for an LLM program in the US)?

"I am one of those who believes that this feature is primarily about recognizing people who are particularly accomplished and/or fortunate"

Oh I definitely see that it's a combo of gentle humor and non-ironic props. No one's saying that it's not impressive to have these accolades, but I think the LEWW column is humorously and light-heartedly seizing on the self-congratulation of it all.

But what do you say to the fact that this "recognition of the accomplished and fortunate" is entirely self-selecting? The couples themselves send in the announcement about how "great" they are. Is that in and of itself kind of a tacky thing to do? Or no?

Me, I think there will always be a difference of opinion on these things. It's like the Yale or Harvard shirt on the jogger, or on the back window on the Volvo. Some people find that tacky; some find it a celebration of their alma mater. Some will find a NYT vow entry embarrassing, and some will find it a healthy celebration of one's successes. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

I should clarify that I do NOT think it's historically "tacky," whatever that means, to send in your NYT vows.

I think that it's the very recent injection of blog coverage that may add that element, in some people's eyes, over time.

The blogs strip out any pretense that the entries are simply mundane wedding announcements by focusing on "ranking" the successes in humorous fashion, and calling attention to what schools, what jobs are involved, etc.

So, I think that might change how people might look at the vows page going forward, and how they feel about sending their entry in.

"It's like the Yale or Harvard shirt on the jogger"

Is that always bad? Sometimes it feels like there's a double standard. The dude who went to Ohio State can wear a t-shirt with his school name on it, but if you went to an ivy then you're bragging. Can't you wear it because you have fond memories of the place and would like to remember them? Why is that different than the person who went to OSU, Michigan, or UNC?

I think it is .. arguable. I see your point. But the Yale/Harvard tee is a little tacky outside of Cambridge or New Haven I think.

It's arguably different from Michigan or UNC because they are unbelievably elite institutions. The names have meaning way beyond "that's where I went to school-- Go team." They signify "I'm very smart or very privileged."

No me gusta la proliferacion de espanol en estes comentarios. Pienso que debemos hacer ingles el idioma exclusivo y oficial. Y tambien, en mi opinion, these couples suck. And who the hell thinks of Michigan and UNC as being "elite" -- and no, I don't go to StanHarvAle.

No me gusta:

I think you should reread the post before yours. The author's point was that Michigan and UNC were not thought of as elite institutions, the way--for better or worse--that Harvard and Yale are.

Hi all,

I wanted to let you know about the launch of Sunday LLC, a revolutionary time-saving service providing enhanced mobility for its members.

Sunday provides customized personal assistance (via email and telephone) whereby you can ask dedicated agents to help with such tasks such as restaurant reservations, real-time internet search, and outbound calls on your behalf. The service is esp. great with a Blackberry because it goes the extra step needed to finish a task remotely.

Use the promo code "beta" for a free month trial.

Check us out at www.asksunday.com

Hi all,

I wanted to let you know about the launch of Sunday LLC, a revolutionary time-saving service providing enhanced mobility for its members.

Sunday provides customized personal assistance (via email and telephone) whereby you can ask dedicated agents to help with such tasks such as restaurant reservations, real-time internet search, and outbound calls on your behalf. The service is esp. great with a Blackberry because it goes the extra step needed to finish a task remotely.

Use the promo code "beta" for a free month trial.

Check us out at www.asksunday.com

Whatever. Bec and Anton are deserving of serious props for their selection of the relatively under-the radar and fantastic Joe's Pizza as one of their favorite NYC spots.