How Appalling

2006-10-04T11:55:00.000-04:00

2006-08-14T11:31:00.000-04:00

It has been a while since I posted, but I just could not resist promoting my blockbuster preview of the first oral arguments of the new Supreme Court term. Through my hard research and in depth analysis, you will learn such gems as what the question presented in the first case to be argued will be, and that the second case follows the first case. If that is not enough, I will detail for you which case will be argued the next day, and which case will follow that case. There is more, but you will have to click on the above link to learn the suprise ending of what cases will be argued the second week in October!

2006-01-30T09:20:00.000-05:00

20 Questions for the Low-paid Attorney
As I note here, I will interview a lawyer who received $1.50 in attorney's fees. Does anyone have any suggestions of questions for the attorney, other than, of course, whether he agrees the Ninth Circuit should be split, what he thinks about citation to nonpublished opinions, who his favorite judge is, living or dead, and whether there are any good places to eat in the 10th Circuit.

2006-01-09T09:17:00.000-05:00

A primer on People I Know
For those of you who have not read enough about how well I know the judges of the Third Circuit, I humbly offer my insights into them, staring with the ones I know best. I'm sure my close personal relationship with these esteemed jurists will shine through when I recount such pearls as the fact that Senior Judges Becker and Aldisert are among the All-Time Greatest Judges on the Third Circuit, and that Chief Judge Scirica is "one of the nices and kindest people evar!" Also, Tim Lewis is black.

2006-01-06T18:34:00.000-05:00

If all goes as planned, I will wet my pants about Sammy A!

2005-10-31T14:41:00.000-05:00

Sam Alito is my Friend!
Oh how I am proven right again and again. As I note here, and here, Circuit Judge Samuel Alito is my friend. I would also like to tell you that my wife knows Sam Alito, and he's her friend too! I have written extensively about Judge Alito, and by that I mean I have mentioned him at least a couple of times. In fact, he sits on the appellate court where I practice, and that I write about. Regularly! And I may or may not talk about him tomorrow on a local radio station!

Of slightly less importance than my own connections to this Judge, I should also mention that he has been nominated to replace Justice O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

2005-10-06T16:53:00.000-04:00

I won't sell myself to AOL!.

As I note here, I will not sell myself to AOL. Of course, that's only because I already sold myself to Legal Affairs.

2005-01-04T13:31:00.000-05:00

A reader emails to say:

Dear Howard,

I have voted for you one million times! You are truly the most bestest legal thinker on earth, and I hereby condemn Legal Affairs for even doubting that you are not the best. In the future, all further awards analysis in the field of “excellence” should go to you.

Love,

A Dean of a Very Important Law School which is highly ranked by Legal Affairs.

2005-01-03T08:55:00.000-05:00

Rehnquist violates federal law!

I can't believe that I neglected to mention, when I reported here and here, on the Los Angeles Times article by David G. Savage about gifts that Supreme Court Justices have received, that Justice Rehnquist apparently did not report the gift of one Justice Rehnquist bobblehead that he received in 2002, which was worth at least $374.90, but likely upwards of $405.00.

According to the article, Rehnquist "accepted a $5,000-award from Fordham University — the only gift he reported for the six-year period."

2004-10-28T15:31:00.000-04:00

Breaking News! A paper reports here that the next president could appoint justices to the Supreme Court! As us top-notch appellate litigators say, “Holy Fucking Shit!” I reported on story about the Supreme Court here . As you know, last week, I predicted here that day dogs and cats would begin to live together!

2004-10-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

You've finally done it.
Oh I warned you, appellate judges. I told you that I MUST obtain a replacement judge for D.C. Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards or I would cancel the popular "20 Questions" feature of my blog. Well none of you appellate judges stepped forward, so I had to beg for permission to reprint someone else's questions. Looking back, I think I was in a state of denial. Underneath my quiet fury at D.C. Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards I simply could not believe that you appellate judges would let the popular "20 Questions" feature of my blog come to an end. Now I realize that you are only hurting yourselves.

There will be no more of the popular "20 Questions" feature.

You have done this to yourselves, appellate judges. Now who will ask you what your favorite and least favorite aspects of being an appellate judge are? Who will allow you to tell the world your opinion on citation to unpublished opinions? Who will wonder what tips you have for better brief writing or oral advocacy? Who?

Nobody. That's who. If you want to know who to blame, look in a mirror, or look to D.C. Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards.

2004-10-24T11:20:00.000-04:00

Programming note: In case you missed my last post, the brochure for the "Appellate Advocacy Seminar" lists me as a "a leading appellate lawyer on the Internet..." on page 5!

The workshop is sponsored by the Defense Research Institute which explains how much it cares about diversity here (p. 7). Of course, by “defense” they don’t mean “criminal defense” and by “diversity” they don’t seem to include lawyers who make it their business to represent injured people. Diversity is not a civil war battle ship. Anyway, if you attend my presentation, you will learn how to defeat the menace of tort victims with style. Electronically.

2004-10-22T15:34:00.000-04:00

Programming Note: I am scheduled to appear in Puppyland, on October 28, 2004, as on that day, dogs and cats will begin to live together.

2004-10-20T13:57:00.000-04:00

Get your CLE Credit in Appellate Adovacy. I will be speaking to the National Lawyers Guild convention on October 21, 2004 on what constitutes “good appellate advocacy.” I urge all of you to attend this once-in-a lifetime event!

Update: Just kidding. A little top-notch appellate humor there.

Oooh, look, a bobblehead.

2004-10-14T04:44:00.000-04:00

Wackiest blog on the net! Sometimes, when I am alone in a hotel room, I begin to surf the web. I find a lot of interesting things besides furries. Yesterday, for instance, I found a blog devoted to – get this – “Appellate Law and Practice.” Apparently, there are people out there who read appellate caselaw, and write about it. Perverts!

2004-10-12T13:00:00.000-04:00

Having a Bar Mitzva or Wedding? Considering hiring me to speak about “technology.” As you know, “technology” is the wave of the future.

2004-10-08T13:31:00.000-04:00

Greedy Clerks is back up. In the past 10 minutes, they have mocked me almost two times. This explains why you should retain me for all of your appellate litigation needs when you don't have the budget to hire my old firm.

Update: They have now mocked me ALMOST THREE TIMES! To add insult to injury, they did so while discussing another blog!

2004-10-08T13:06:00.000-04:00

Rachel's Blog is not watching me enough. Like all top-notch appellate litigators, I have been watching Rachel Hunter’s blog very closely now, as it appears that Greedy Clerks is no longer a top referrer to that blog. This may be because their server is down, or it may be because they do not “give a damn.” However, I also noticed that zoo-free-sex.perverted-dreams.com now refers more people to her blog than my blog does. How did this happen? Unless more people look at Rachel Hunter’s blog after reading my blog, I will not ask her twenty questions about how she picks law clerks or which big words she likes to use when she wins her race to be a judge or something.

Update: An alert reader informs me that cialis-generic-viagra.biz is now the top referrer to Rachel's blog.

2004-10-07T21:33:00.000-04:00

Greedy Clerks is down. Who will mock me now?

2004-10-05T09:06:00.000-04:00

Would I lie to you?
"From the outset, I have expressed a willingness to continue the '20 questions' feature for as long as appellate judges are willing to participate as interviewees. " When D.C. Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards backed out of the October installment of the 20 questions feature I threatened to end the feature if another appellate judge did not step forward. I said, "In order for the feature to continue, I must obtain a replacement October 2004 interviewee by this Friday, October 1, 2004." I also said that "If I am unable to obtain a replacement October 2004 interviewee by this Friday, this web log's "20 questions for the appellate judge" feature will permanently come to an end after twenty quite remarkable installments in twenty months."

Well, quite frankly, it was all too ominous for me. When push came to shove, after my repeated threats, I was really too scared that the 20 questions feature might actually end, so

the questions

See here. That is to say, the 20 questions feature was never really in danger at all! However, this was a one-time-only reprieve. If I don't get an interviewee for December or maybe it's January at this point, I really really really will cancel the feature.

No really I will.

I'm not just saying that. It's true.

For real this time.

2004-09-30T21:28:00.000-04:00

There is something wrong with my email. For some reason, I did not get the email from the Top-Notch Appellate litigators who condemned the nameless former law clerks at the Supreme Court who allegedly whined to Vanity Fair about Bush v. Gore. Like many of the signatories, I was not a member of “the elect” but I am a member of the Federalist Society, therefore it must be the fault of a technical glitch that I was not asked to sign a letter demanding confidentiality from law clerks, even though, like most top-notch appellate litigators, I do my best to find out everything I can about the judges I either argue before or lecture to.

2004-09-20T09:52:00.000-04:00

"How Appalling" has a sponsor: No, I haven't entered into a twelve-step program to rid myself of an addition to blogging and Googling myself to find out how much of a top-notch appellate litigator I y’am. Rather, the purpose of this post is to point out that the good folks at Goatse.cx will be sponsoring "How Appalling" for the next two months, and maybe longer. Indeed, I believe that Constitution allows individuals to be forced to sponsor How Appalling indefinitely? You mean that the opportunity to sponsor "How Appalling" exists? Apparently so. This offer is good until the war on terror eneds. Please give me money.

2004-09-02T16:50:00.000-04:00

A Heritage of Truth! As I noted here and here I have been in constant communication with the good folks at the Heritage Foundation. As all of you know, I am well-regarded by the Heritage Foundation because the Heritage Foundation thinks that I am an unbiased purveyor of appellate truth, in the forms of textbites. If the Heritage Foundation relies on me, then they must be true and honest.

2004-08-16T00:00:00.000-04:00

Blue Thunder. You may remember this movie from 1983. Well, it is no longer a movie about a helicopter. Instead, it is my new website. It is blue. It declares that:

Top-notch appellate advocacy is an art and science unto itself, requiring a set of skills that few lawyers possess.

Curiously, I don't know why whenever I type "Top-notch appellate advocacy," a picture of this guy pops up. If any of you know why this happens, please email me.

2004-07-30T10:45:00.000-04:00

I am Very Famous. I have many leather-bound books. As I noted here, lots of people are looking at my blog, from all over the world. I know this because I use Extreme Tracking. This product is like regular tracking, but extreme. As you know, I am quite grateful for foreigners taking an interest in American appellate litigation. Remember: Please come to Harvard next month to see my lecture entitled: Technology: It is the Future! However, do not expect me to cite to foreign law, even if it provides the rule of decision in your cases because I intend to recruit clients by telling them how "conservative" I am despite the fact that American courts have cited to foreign law from the beginning, my clients don’t like to be told this, nor do they like to be told that I am a "lousy oral advocate." PS: Sex Toy Reference.

2004-07-19T16:02:00.000-04:00

There is no bad press. I have decided that it takes a big man to have detractors. I have therefore decided to link in my blogroll to Greedy Clerks, the other How Appalling and to this How Appalling, although I have taken care to make sure that this site is sidled with the denigrating title of "How Appalling II." Of course, longtime readers of How Appalling know just what a big move this is for me. My former position was that I would delete blogroll links to people who criticize me (like Greedy Clerks) and while I would link to an article about How Appalling, I wouldn't link to this site itself.

Of course, I had to change my policy of de-linking those who insult me. Otherwise, I would be forced to remove my link to the Wall Street Journal, which today dissed me by publishing an article about Sentencing Law and Policy blog without mentioning me.

2004-07-15T10:26:00.000-04:00

Breaking news!!! The Daily Dispatch reports here that “Local lawyer D. Randall Cloninger has been accepted to the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court.” As you all my readers know, I predicted that this would happen here using my superior powers of court-watching which has allowed me to predict with 100% accuracy which applications for admission to practice would be accepted by the Supreme Court.

2004-07-13T09:15:00.000-04:00

Blawg cited in appellate decision. I am pleased to inform my readers that a blawg I linked to was cited in this Second Circuit opinion. Much like Bill Gates and Oprah , who have made people millionaires, I too enjoy using my power to make other blawgs successful. All roads lead to Bashman, after all.

2004-07-13T09:00:00.000-04:00

My record before the Supreme Court. Tony Mauro, who yesterday recognized my journalistic prowess, has an article entitled "High Court's Penchant for Familar Voices." Most people do not know that I have two victories and one defeat before the United States Supreme Court. Mere mortals might wonder how this is possible since I have never actually argued before the Supreme Court. Those who wonder out loud shall share the fate of the Greedy Clerks Board. Now you see them, now you don't.

2004-07-12T11:32:00.000-04:00

I have great logistical abilities. As many people know, Joseph Stalin earned the admiration of the Prussian brass for "shifting [the] unscorched Soviet economy to East of the Urals, out of reach of Nazi panzers." Indeed, as we all know, for a top-notch appellate litigator like me, the “gold ring” of appellate litigation is to be favorably compared by the Ninth Circuit to Joe. It happened today here!

Finally, a reminder to all of you who read my blog: do not read “Underneath their Robes.” This blog is not written by me, and it does not involve me or my robes. Therefore, there is no reason that you need to read it. If you read this blog you put yourself at risk of catching an STD.

2004-07-12T09:52:00.000-04:00

Green with envy. How come Underneath Their Robes gets a mention in Newsweek and I don't? Silly question, of course it was because I mentioned the website, which is also why the clerks at the Supreme Court were talking about it on Thursday.

Or maybe, just maybe the clerks at the Court don't have time to wade through thousands of posts that aren't about appellate litigation, and instead were talking about Underneath Their Robes because of the post on Greedy Clerks that day. While Article III Groupie's post on Greedy Clerks appears to have been posted before I mentioned the website, that will soon be remedied.

2004-07-09T16:54:00.000-04:00

Cry for attention. Maybe some people out there think it's rather pompous of me to declare (here and here), on the one hand, how popular and informative my 20 questions for the appellate judge feature is, while on the other hand obstinately delcare that I will discontinue the feature if I don't get a judge to volunteer every month. Some might also find it bizarre that I would violate my own rule by declaring that if I don't get a judge for August, I will still interview the judges I have lined up for September, October, and November. These observations, however, fall into the category of things about which I don't give a damn.

2004-07-04T03:32:00.000-04:00

I am posting this at 3:30 in the morning. At this hour of the night the only stories involve, random losers provide their thoughts on the constitution here.

2004-07-02T16:10:00.000-04:00

A reminder: Sometime in the morning of Tuesday, July 6, 2004, I will post the July 2004 installment of "20 questions for the appellate judge." No matter what time I post it, however, I will make sure to backdate it to appear that I posted it at exactly midnight.

Warning: If I don't hear from an appellate judge to be interviewed for August, then this feature will cease. I mean it, I'll do it. I really will. Appellate judges should come to me, preferably on bended knee, and beg for the opportunity to be interviewed. But make sure to do it before July 9. I won't give any extensions! I really will stop doing 20 questions. Wouldn't that be terrible? So all you judges who read me, and I know you read me because you love me and you write me e-mail, if you love 20 questions, and I know you do because it was my idea and how could anyone not love my idea? If you love it and you don't want me to stop, which I really will do, by the way, then you better volunteer.

I'm just saying that I really will stop doing it.

2004-06-30T16:16:00.000-04:00

Where have I been? Kidnapped and taken to Mexico, of course. My kidnappers were accompanied by a non-lawyer reporter for Legal Affairs. Read about it here. Remember: Legal Affairs owns you.

2004-06-28T10:00:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court decisions: The Supreme Court of the United States has issued several decisions today. I am pleased to report that my predictions were 100% accurate.

2004-06-26T22:14:00.000-04:00

Predictions: The Supreme Court of the United States is slated to issue seven more significant decisions, which you can read about here. I would like to make my predictions public before these decisions come down.

1. Justice David H. Souter will announce the judgment of the Court in Missouri v. Siebert, No. 02-1371, affirming the judgment under review.

2. Justice Clarence Thomas will announce the judgment of the Court in United States v. Patane, No. 02-1183, and the judgment under review will be reversed.

3. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will announce the judgment of the Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03-6696, and the judgment under review will be vacated.

4. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will deliver the opinion of the Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, No. 03-1027, and the judgment under review will be reversed.

5. Justice John Paul Stevens will deliver the opinion of the Court in Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, and the judgment under review will be reversed.

You might wonder how I can be so sure about these predictions. Well, let's just say it comes from years of Court watching.

2004-06-25T15:41:00.000-04:00

Comings and Goings: How Appalling Congratulates Solicitor General Theodore Olson upon his appointment to the spot of “Second Best Appellate Lawyer” in private practice in the United States. Mr. Olson, as we know, was the last of the “Patriot Act Gang” to find jobs in the private sector in this harsh job market. With few social skills and low grades in property and contracts he was unable to initially woo any of the employers who recruited on campus, including myself. However, after working for a few years in the government, Mr. Olson has learned the “necessary nuts and bolts” to work as either an associate at my firm. Alert readers will note that I reported on the opinions regarding the "presidential detention and eating power" that will be released on Monday elsewhere in the blog.

2004-06-24T09:59:00.000-04:00

True wisdom comes to those who read my posts carefully. As most of you are aware, I reported the result in Beard v. Banks way back on Thursday, May 13, 2004.

2004-06-24T09:58:00.000-04:00

Back in Time. As I first posted here, I have an incredible ability to see into the future. Of course, as this post on the Greedy Clerks board shows, my powers of prediction are greatly aided when I can backdate my blog posts to make it appear that they were posted earlier than they actually were. So when I find out the decisions of the Supreme Court at 11:00, I can make my post appear as if I knew them at 10:00.

Update: To show just how great my powers are, you may note that this post was made before I posted today's Supreme Court decisions.

2004-06-04T16:15:00.000-04:00

As it turns out, the counter we were using here, which is the same counter I was using on my other blog, was indeed causing popup ads. As you can see, we have changed to a new counter (the new counter allowed us to specify the 10,135 hits that we received before changing).

2004-06-04T15:46:00.000-04:00

I work hard for the money. It appears that my former partners at Buchanan Ingersol were right to kick me out on my ear for squandering thousands of dollars of billable time on this collection of links. While I once touted myself as "a highly-paid appellate lawyer," I now admit that "frankly, I'm not being paid that much."

The title of this post brought to you by Pat Benatar.

2004-06-01T23:46:00.000-04:00

How Appalling helps free innocent man On November 16, 2002, I blogged about Curb Your Enthusiasm. On May 12, 2003, a man was killed. Juan Catalan was charged with the murder. Catalan claimed that it was impossible for him to have killed anyone since he was with his dauther at a Dodgers game during the killing. The police did not believe Catalan's story and thus arrested him.

However, Catalan's attorney realized that Curb Your Enthusiam was filming at Dodgers Stadium the night of the murder. He obtained the tapes, which happily showed his client at Dodgers Stadium. Undoubtedly the attorney thought to subpoena the tapes only after seeing that I blogged about Curb Your Enthusiam. Now you understand why I give up literally thousands of dollars of otherwise billable time at this blog. It is, truly, a pro bono project.

The AP story can be found here.

2004-05-22T07:49:00.000-04:00

I’m pissed. As most of you know, the Democrats and the Republicans put aside their differences over appellate judges for the time being. This means, in effect, that the rhetoric of the constitution and qualifications was rhetoric. I dutifully reported it all!

Then, the constitution was amended. I reported on that here. Well, it wasn’t really modified but a wacko said it was modified. However, it was my duty to report on it. Also, Rape Monthly has a cover story entitled "She Passed Out." Finally, to top it all off and put a cherry on it, some punk-ass law professor calls me a jerk. Then, my blog gets haxored and the world who reads my blog thinks I said, "...send in the hope that I might give a damn" here.

On the up-side, The Washington Times reports here that more teenage girls are having sex. I am totally shocked. I thought they did noting but read my blog. This must have something to do with the decline of moral values in America. In my day, teenage girls did nothing but read "How Appealing" and talk about it with their friends.

2004-05-17T15:21:00.000-04:00

New side project. In addition to being a great news aggregator--I mean appellate litigator, and egomaniac--I mean blogger extraordinare, I am adding "super seer" to my resume: As this post demonstrates, I can see the future with perfect clarity. Next stop, VEGAS BABY!

"This was the precise outcome and exact division among the panel that I predicted based on having read the briefs and attended the oral argument in this case. "

2004-05-13T07:20:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the lack of posts. As you know, I have been attending CLE programs at the The Likeable Lawyer. My army of would-be research assistants (all of which received offers to be Bristow fellows) is being screened by The Likeable Lawyer in their screening program to see if they are the right fit for me. Activities include swing-dancing and GPS orienteering. Also, in Beard v. Banks, No. 02-1603, the Supreme Court, in an opinion to be released on Thursday, June 24, 2004, that Mills v. Maryland does not apply retroactively. I know this because I am a top-notch appellate litigator who will provide you with top-quality appellate litigation at reasonable prices.

2004-05-09T08:43:00.000-04:00

How To Tell If You Are Practicing in Front of a Bad Appellate Judge: Recently, Ken Lammers, who did not follow the same career path as myself, but seems to do all sorts of wacky things involving people that require appellate representation, posted a list of ways to tell that you have a bad lawyer here.

This list was no way related to the list that David Letterman wrote. However, I noticed that some people thought it was funny, and rather than raving about my blog, they posted a link to it here and here.

Therefore, I am going to give you my list of “How To Tell If You Are Practicing in Front of a Bad Appellate Judge.”

1. He works for a court in a circuit not evenly divisible by three.

2. He was once rumored to say that answering 20 questions on the internet seems like a rather silly idea for someone who was nominated by the president, confirmed by Congress, has life tenure, and will have anything they write published anyay.

3. He looks down from the podium to say “Sorry, I don’t have a subscription to the online version of the LA Times, so you will have to tell me what it said, rather than spelling out a 250-letter ‘url’.”

4. Does not express an opinion as to whether unpublished opinions can be cited or not.

5. Did not go to one of my alma matters. (The odds of this are very rare, because, in five years I will have attended every law school in the country.)

6. Defends decision on right to privacy by saying here, "There are countries where you can go and suck away for all you are worth... People in high places do it for all they're worth. I'm not an expert, but you read about it in the papers. But this is Asia." Does not drop footnote that Asians seem to have lots of oral sex with lots of people (including people who should not be having sex at all) here and here.

7. Has robe made completely of black silk. There is no yellow-stripe running down the right side with list of blogs stenciled onto it.

8. Thinks bobble-heads are not only stupid, but does not even understand if they are a form of derisive parody or homage.

9. Thinks that “The Green Bag” is a racial slur.

10. Asks “Howard who?”

2004-05-05T16:26:00.000-04:00

More mail. I have just received the follwing very interesting e-mail from the latest interviewee in How Appealing's 20 Questions for the Appellate Judge:

Dear Howard --

Thank you for not rejecting me as an interviewee because you were dissatisfied with the amount of effort or interest that my answers seemed to reflect.

I must come clean with my answer to Question No. 9

9. Missouri is not the only State that uses the title of "Judge," rather than "Justice," for those who serve on the State's highest court. But on the New York Court of Appeals, the presiding jurist is known as "Chief Judge," while on your court, everyone is known as "Judge" except for the "Chief Justice." What is the history of your court's system of titles, and what sense, if any, does it make for a court to consist of six Judges and one Chief Justice?

There is really no significance to whether we are called "judges" or "justices." We are all here to serve the public fairly.

While my answer may have seemed condescending, I am secretly writing a book on the subject, "Honor and Pride: Demystifying the Judge/Justice/Chief Justice Distinction in the Missouri Courts." Obviously, I did not want to let the cat out of the bag just yet.

Cheers,

Judge (not Justice) Teitelman

2004-05-05T15:15:00.000-04:00

Another new law school in New York City: CourtTV reports here that "Michael Jacobson, a professor of criminology at John Jay Law School in New York City and a former commissioner for the New York City Corrections Commission..." said something or other. While I am under no obligation to fact-check (that is Brain Leiter's job) I am open to proposals from this new law school regarding my retroactive graduation from it.

2004-05-05T08:08:00.000-04:00

The Appalling Mailbag

A reader writes in to me to say,

Dear Howard:

Why don’t you pre-screen judges for your wonderful “20 questions” page. That judge from some state that begins with an M was like totally lame.

Sincerely,

I-only-practice-in-Federal-Courts

What a brilliant idea! Are you interested in being my turning down that offer for a Bristow fellowship and working as my research assistant? I will be sending out the following letter to all judges who, serve as appellate judges. This includes trial court state and federal trial court judges who sit by designation on appellate courts or sit on courts whose jurisdiction includes administrative appeals.

How Appalling Judicial Screening Questionnaire
(This is not political. It is only to tell if you are qualified. Be as honest as possible about how you would answer questions if you were selected for the honor of answering questions on How Appalling.)

1. In 500 words or less why do you think my blog is great?
2. Tell me why you deserve to be on 20 questions. Explain this in the context of how interesting it is that the Virgin Islands are in the Third Circuit?
3. Why are you not on the Third Circuit? If you happen to be on the Third Circuit, why am I not on the Third Circuit? Be brutally honest.
4. What is your clerk’s sock on Greedy Clerks?
5. How many times per day do you read How Appalling? This question is to test your knowledge of How Appalling and style at explaining how my blog is wonderful.
6. Fill in the blanks: ___ is sexy; ___ is sexier.
7. In 30 seconds, create as many neat puns about Manuel Miranda as possible. I am looking for quality.
8. Do you enjoy reading How Appalling to your children and grandchildren? They like it, right?
9. Since you have been accused many time of being a judicial activist, what do you have to say to people who accused you of being a judicial activist?
10. How much time per day do you spend thinking about that letter you got from Kozinski regarding certain changes to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure?

Your answers will be treated with the utmost confidentiality. I get roughly 500 applications per day to be questioned by me, on How Appalling. In short, the chances of being selected are very small. Being a reject is not a reflection on your personal character, but rather on the qualifications of the other judges who have been selected. If you are not selected, I ask that you continue reading How Appalling, and wait at least a year before submitting again. During that year, you are expected to make yourself MORE interesting.

2004-05-04T01:09:00.000-04:00

Appellate Column
How to be like Me.

I get a lot of inquiries from law students, law clerks, lawyers, judges, and Supreme Court justices asking how to be like me. This, my latest appellate column, is written in response to those inquiries.

First, you must go to a first-rate law school. Although my alma matter is currently among the Top 23 in the country, when I went it must have been ranked much higher. Second, allow yourself to be honored by America’s other fine law schools. I have spoken at Harvard Law School and my truly outstanding legal web log is hosted by Legal Affairs Magazine, a publication of Yale Law School. These honors are especially fitting, as I have always thought of myself as an Ivy League Man.

Second, clerk for an elite federal judge, preferably a Supreme Court Justice. Should you be able to obtain an offer from a Supreme Court Justice, you are welcome to decline and then apply to work for me as a Research Assistant. This position, called a Bashman Fellowship, recently displaced the Bristow Fellowship in terms of prestigue and is often referred to as an opportunity to clerk for the Tenth Justice, who is also known as being First Among Equals.

Third, work for the nation’s top law firm. While others labored in obscurity at such low-brow firms as Williams & Connolly and the Office of the Solicitor General, I worked on cutting-edge insurance defense issues for Buchanan Ingersoll in the City of Brotherly Love. Now I work for the No. 1 appellate practice firm in the country, hjbashman.blogspot.com, which recently took these honors from BI.

Fourth, be prepared to accept honoria from your colleagues. I chaired the appellate courts section of Philidelphia’s Bar Association. Philie’s appellate litigators are the very best in the country having displaced Washington, D.C. under my leadership.

Fifth, read How Appealling daily. You must also engross yourself in my Appellate Columns. It is widely known that my truly outstanding legal web log and Appellate Columns, along with the Rules of the Supreme Court, are known among Supreme Court advocates as the Bible of the Supreme Court.

Sixth, do not shun your success. Do not be afraid of calling – and allowing others to call – yourself number 1. The internet is a wonderul forum with which to promote yourself. After all, before How Appealling, no one used the names Seth Waxman, Migeul Estrada, General Olson, Ken Starr, and Howard Bashman in the same breath. With due hard work and diligence, you too could join this elite club. Or maybe not (see infra).

Finally, you must get lucky. I recognize that most of you can never be me, or even like me. But you might get lucky. You do not need to look for free porn on the internet to get lucky. You can get lucky in other ways than looking for the free Paris Hilton video.

2004-05-03T14:01:00.000-04:00

Live reports of waiting on line before oral arguments. An avid read writes in via the internet to say:

Dear Howard,

Your blog is wonderful. Like most of your avid readers I attend oral arguments and appellate arguments of which I am not representing a client. Many times I find myself traveling many miles and waking up a 4:00 in the morning to witness the top-notch appellate litigators do battle. Although I have not seen you actually argue, I am sure that, based on your blog, you are probably “just as good” as Seth Waxman. Perhaps better.

Because your blog is probably the best thing in the world, as a single female I am in need of someone to have casual conversations with and spend long nights by the fire, eat sushi, and discuss the pros and cons of Fed. R. App. P. 33.1 with. Unfortunately, the people who are standing outside the Supreme Court at 4:30 in the morning are all a bunch of creeps. Ditto for the DC Circuit, and I got arrested for solicitation there, despite my claim to be holding a 45 million dollar brief. There is too much construction around the Federal Circuit’s building to have any heart-to-heart conversations with people in the early morning.

While I can’t offer you any play-by-play descriptions of oral arguments, because I was too busy looking at the gallery of hunky accomplished appellate litigators, I can offer you a suggestion on how to make your blog even better.

As you know, on right side of your blog you have a series of links. These links link to a number of other sites – usually other blogs who have not posted numerous things that might be considered offensive to your religion of “Bashism”
One of your links is to “The Onion.” If you were to, say, click on that link, your browser would be teleported to “The Onion” which is a satirical newspaper. However, not only does it offer commentary on, say, Bush, but it also has the picture of an eligible single on a similarly-situated right-hand column. (I say “similarly situated” because the column is also on the right. Neither column includes a link to Greedy Clerks.) Now, if your wonderful blog were to have a section like this, the picture of an eligible and available accomplished appellate litigator would come up, and if one were to click on their picture, a series of “likes,” “dislikes” and “goods” would appear. The person on display would have to also have the responses to the following “fill in the blank” questions. “____ is sexy; ____ is sexier.” Obviously, I would say “Appellate litigation is sexy; Blogging about news reports about appellate litigation is sexier.”

So, can you help me out? I’m desperate. The Greedy Clerks are so mean. I promise, I will do anything. I will show up at the 9th circuit when it sits in Fairbanks, and email you with my immediate impressions.

Sincerely,
(name withheld)

She gives me a lot of good ideas. In the short term I am trying to think of a short way for readers to say that they love my blog. Perhaps a quick LTBIWABHDOY (Love the Blog, I want a Bobblehead Doll of You) would be helpful. The other ideas will have to wait.

2004-04-29T11:01:00.000-04:00

Pearl Necklaces and Legal Analysis on the Enemy Combatant Cases: Tony Mauro, of the The Legal Times Reports here that "But in the end, it remained unclear where the Court may come down." Also, in Legal Affairs (the first general-interest magazine about the law for non-lawyers as well as lawyers -- all other legal magazines bow before it) reports here that Justice Margaret Marshall wore a "tailored black pantsuit, black heels, and double strands of pearls around her neck and one wrist."

Congratulations to the winners of the writing competition at Legal Affairs: a magazine about people who have heard of Yale Law School. The winners, the majority of which are not only from Yale Law School but will clerk for appellate judges. The competition between the judges for clerks that won the competition consisted of general-knowledge questions about How Appealing and a swimsuit competition. From time to time I go to Pennsylvania, therefore one token winner attends the University of Pennsylvania law school.

2004-04-28T22:39:00.000-04:00

Love plus one. Sometime tonight, or tomorrow, this humble blog will top 7,000 hits. I thank you for your enthusiastic interest in How Appalling. I can only hope that by this blog's six month anniversary we can get another 220,500 hits, so I can brag, er, be just like my idol. In the meantime, I'll keep updating you every time my counter adds another digit. I just know you all find it as fascinating as I do, like I said here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (and those were just the times I mentioned my hits in 2002!).

2004-04-28T12:53:00.000-04:00

Bashing Howard is Yale Law School: My research assistant, after reading Logic for Lawyers (which was written by Ruggero J. Aldisert, whom I interviewed and who incidentally is a judge of the 3rd Circuit, where I practice) concluded that Yale Law School and Bashing Howard are one and the same.

The syllogism follows:

Bashing Howard is How Appalling.
How Appalling is Legal Affairs.
Legal Affairs is Yale Law School.
Therefore, Bashing Howard is Yale Law School.

2004-04-28T12:48:00.000-04:00

I no longer read the opinions: Follow this link for an announcement of two recent Supreme Court decisions.

UPDATE: I meant that you should follow this link. My truly outstanding legal web log (which is now hosted by Legal Affairs, which is a magazine of the Yale Law School) will always provide cutting-edge commentary and scholarly analysis. Thus, I will tell my readers which justice wrote the majority opinion, any and all concurrences, and any and all dissents.

2004-04-28T08:12:00.000-04:00

Civil Liberties in the News: A reminder to all of you anxiously awaiting oral arguments in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, a case involving the executive’s power to detain American citizens: Legal Affairs provides up-to-the-every-other-month human-interest stories about the legal profession and can be yours for a small fee. The money goes to my fourth alma mater: Yale Law School. Also, Lawschool.com, edited by Stan Chess, announces in the middle of their page that "LawSchool.com is offering a reward of $5,000 to the first person providing info leading to the indictment and conviction of the individual who has been sabotaging the LawSchool.com website by posting large quantities of racist and otherwise offensive comments." I wonder if the Green Bag (the only humor that accomplished appellate litigators are allowed to talk about) will make a bobblehead of Stan Chess, who does what I do. Only with law students. And not as much. And certainly not in the Third Circuit (which is, by the way, the dancingist circuit). If someone could email me a link to the "racist material" and "offensive material," and include some kind words about my blog, I would greatly appreciate it. Finally, I found this complaint letter about me, here. None of it is true. Therefore, I will be deleting the link to it. Please do not click on it.

Update: Stan Chess started his own law school, Manhattan Law School here. Stay tuned to this website for details of my own law school which will utilize the cutting-edge technology of Movable Type.

2004-04-22T16:57:00.000-04:00

Personality conflict: Enraged Ironically Federalist Liberal with a Misogynistic Streak wages war on everything here.

2004-04-21T20:01:00.000-04:00

Appellate Litigation is Popular: I can hardly contain my excitement. How Appalling is now #2 on Google's search for "Appalling." This must mean that people like to learn about appellate law from a top-notch appellate litigator. It is #1 if you do this search ! Also, someone looked at this blog using Opera today. I am finally getting the kind of visitors that I want. Speaking of visitors, if you want to avoid catching Herpes, be sure and visit Legal Affairs magazine here.

2004-04-21T16:54:00.000-04:00

The Next Set of 20 Questions.: The Greedy Clerks have agreed to be the next guest on "20 Questions with an Appellate Judge." While I have eliminated them from the links on the right-hand side of the page because they dared to question my infallibility, and make fun of my name, I figure that it is necessary to massage their egos by asking them 20 questions as I was too busy to interview myself as was briefly noted on this blog. While Greedy Clerks are not appellate judges, their egos are almost as large, and they are widely purported to be the electronic manifestations of the demons that lurk inside the souls of appellate judges, so it is almost the same -- perhaps better! Already suggested questions have been flooding my mailbox and instant-message thingy. However, because they are so wonderful that even a top-notch appellate litigator could not bear to hear their voices, I will not verbalize the questions, but they will be promoted to answer the questions anyway. In national news, the south rose again. Just kidding.

2004-04-20T21:39:00.000-04:00

No censuring of 20 Questions in the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit has held that prisoners may read How Appealing. This, no doubt, was prompted by Judge Reinhardt, who did not want my interview with him to go unnoticed. However, I do note that Judge Reinhardt has a "less than perfect" record before the Supreme Court. You can read the Ninth Circuit opinion, featuring the "less than perfect" Judge Reinhardt (whom I interviewed) here. Click on this page of the opinion to see a reference to my truly outstanding legal web log.

2004-04-20T17:19:00.000-04:00

Ho Ho Ho. While I previously stated that my new relationship with Legal Affairs Magazine would not affect my posting habits ("my postings will continued [sic] to appear whenever and however I choose"), I suddenly feel the urge to randomly link to the table of contents of Legal Affairs Magazine. Go figure.

2004-04-20T15:55:00.000-04:00

Feeding Frenzy: I now have an RSS-feed in my blog, which is now part of a news magazine. This way, people whose blogs consist of newsfeeds can now have access to my blog which is a newsfeed in itself. This is pretty trippy. Speaking of that, John Gibbons, who argued for the petitioner in Rasul, was on the Third Circuit. He retired. See, if I was on the Third Circuit I would get to argue in front of the Supreme Court after I retire. Also, Bag and Baggage, written by my friend Denise Howell, who also is a top-notch appellate practitioner, says "Have you ever wondered what a federal appellate judge might sound like in IM-speak?" and then links to me! And finally a reader emails me to say:

Dear Howard,

I heard that appellate and intellectual property lawyer Denise Howell is being seriously considered for the Third Circuit. Jealous?

Well, I would never be jealous of appellate and intellectual property lawyer Denise Howell. Not a bit. This reminds me of a trivia question. Since Ms. Howell lives in the geographic area that is known as the "Ninth Circuit" can someone name a judge in the Third Circuit who has his chambers in the Ninth. Hint: it is in my "20 questions with an appellate judge." So read it, and click on whatever banner ads that Legal Affairs, a nonprofit organization might have seen fit to put beside it.

2004-04-20T10:58:00.000-04:00

Good news and bad news! The Greedy Clerks have said good things about my blog here, here, and here. On the bad side, is seems that many of the Greedy Clerks, when logging on from home, use Macs or AOL. Since I get many hits from USCourts.gov and the Supreme Court, I am quite disappointed that such respect is diluted by hits from AOL.com.

Even though I pretend to know very little about computers, because I am a top-notch appellate litigator I know that not using Unix is unprofessional behavior. Would you like it if I did not submit my wonderous high-quality briefs to your judges or do everything that Kozinski tells me to do to lose an appeal? I think not. Well, reading my blog using a Mac, or AOL shows very little respect for such a high quality class-act tip-top A1 best-of-the-batch litigator like myself! Finally, stay tuned to Goldstein and Howe's blog for details about the Gitmo oral arguments today. Did you know that I giggle like a schoolgirl when I say "ScotusBlog"?

2004-04-19T18:49:00.000-04:00

More porn links: Click here for HIV porn; more DOJ porn; virtual porn; more HIV porn; ISP porn; and finally, a link to an article by Clinton Dick.

2004-04-19T15:23:00.000-04:00

Changes! If all goes as planned, at midnight, How Appaling will turn into a werewolf. An ancient third circuit legend has it that top-notch appellate litigators turn into werewolves as soon as their blogs reach a certain number of hits. I a getting very close and I feel the hair growing in places that hair has never grown before.

2004-04-19T15:01:00.000-04:00

By popular demand. As most of you know, I continually get IMed by very important people. In fact, some of the important people that I get IMed by talk to god. Now, as a appellate litigator, I am used to talking, on an informal basis to life-tenured judges. I really respect them because they respect me. Anyway, this is a very special edition of “20 questions with an appellate judge” because it was initiated by the judge himself.

PRyOr11cir: U there?

1. Bashing: Asl?
PRyOr11cir: 44/M/11th cir hahah! Rofl

2. Bashing: kewl. What you up to?
PRyOr11cir: I M chln n d cta11, hoping dat Kerry wiL lose d election & I wiL b 4e n my post.

3. Bashing: cn I ask U 20 :-Qz? 4 my blog. mAbE U hav heard of it here, here, here, here, here, or here.
PRyOr11cir: n. I d internet iz 4 fags. I onlE IM ppl. I cn TLK 2 aL of my fRnds n d Fedrlst Sosiete DIS way.

4. Bashing: Do U suport d law clerk hirering plan?
PRyOr11cir: I hav my own plan 2 hire law clerks. I gota L%k out 4 # 1. dat iz me. I hire d law clerks dat hlp me out, wen I wnt. I M freestyle, ya knO.

5. Bashing: wot bout splitting d ninth circuit in2 a zillion pieces lIk midevil o somTIN?
PRyOr11cir:I rly admire d co-circuits of d ninth circuit, & d ninth circuit wud b much BetA f ther wer mo of dem

6. Bashing: wot judges do U admire?
PRyOr11cir: d 3:o)z on SX court.

7. Bashing: As attorney general of sme southern st8 nt n D 3rd circuit U, @ prayed dat der wd B no mor Souters. nw ur decisions mYt B aPealed 2 a cort wich includes Justice Souter. Won’t U B a lil :")?
PRyOr11cir: w@ kinda Q S dat, homeboy? dnt U belief n seperation of chrch n st8. wen I T2 D lord n 1 million of my peeps itz anon.

8. Bashing: No rly. hw DY feel bout Justice Souter?
PRyOr11cir: ROFL, LMAOBBQ: mayB f Justice Souter had Hs gme 2gtha he wd av a recess appt lk me. rmbr: I didn't gt a recess appt coz peopel thort I wz daft. Recess appointments r reserved 1ly 4 D smartest ppl n D wrld n Snoopy dogG Dogg.

9. Bashing: TIFTWTDABHOTHC?
PRyOr11cir: w@?
(pause)
Bashing: That is funnier than watching the documentary about Hitler on the History Channel. I hope that the History Channel someday does a piece about my blog which you can read here.
PRyOr11cir: tnx

10. Bashing: DY tnk dat Im smrt nuf 2 gt a recess appt 2 D 3rd cir?
PRyOr11cir: No mn. U gotta play D gme, d00d. U gotta wrk dat stuf n stop W D www. U gotta wrt real articles, lk stuf n D Cumberland LR. rofl!

11. Bashing: DdU alight frm takN dwn moore?
PRyOr11cir: A mn hz gotta du w@ a mn hz gotta du, UNo w@ I mean? Moore wz st&ing n D wA of # 1, dats me. Sure, I lk D 10 commandments (not D JooVer), bt I gotta st& ^ 4 watz ryt, n watz ryt S me bn on D 11th.

12. Bashing: du ppl evr tnk dat ura 2d-rte esq who's ego S 1ly bigA thN w@ oder ppl tnk of him, hu gets a perverse buzz ovr ppl mentioning Hs nme? f so, Y? dnt U uz hyperlinks?
PRyOr11cir: No mn. I got mor cls thN an ass @ BIGLAW 1st yr. I dnt uz hyperlinks coz thyre 4 fags.

13. Bashing: f U wr a trE, w@ kinda trE wd U B?
PRyOr11cir: dat isn’t d proper :-Q 2 ask of a real mang! A real mang lIkz sports. Even recess judges R real men. I mean, cum on, L%k @ U, U Lnk 2 DIS blog – I wud knO how bad it iz f I rED stuff on d internet. Which I don’t.

14. Bashing: I M obligated 2 ask U how U fEl bout unpublished opinions. U knO, rule 33.1. az a recess judge hu didn’t git appointed cuz of thR blog, cn U teL me how U fEl bout rule 33.1
PRyOr11cir: I decline 2 Ans dat :-Q on d grounds dat som mite sA dat undR CFTC v. Schor, d evrtng I wrte mite hav n precedential valU. wutevA d case, I cn sA dat I M not political @ aL. n politics hEr. I M #1 judge. evry1 Ls droolz.

15. Bashing: wot iz judicial activism? f so, Y don’t U sua esponte mAk it impossible 4 d dirty hos n d 11th circuit 2 hav abortions?
PRyOr11cir: evry decision dat I dun lIk iz activist. az a true federalist we knO dat we onlE cn interpret d law & not rewriter it. aL U nEd 2 do iz ask me, & I wiL teL U which Supreme Court decisions R activist. I knO dem wen I c dem. I wont teL U how I knO cuz U R not populR Enuf 2 git appointed 2 NE bench.

16. Bashing: Don’t U fEl a ltl bad dat despite yor kind manner & massive publicAtN record dat U stil annoyed d Democrats?
PRyOr11cir: lmgdao! :)

17. Bashing: Since U hav nevr publically condemned homosexuality, wiL U tAk d opRtunET 2 declare rght nw, & 4 d record dat U wiL nevr hire a (x) law clerk & dat U wiL nevr Dcide a case n favor of NE (x) intRStz. f U dun do DIS, wiL assume dat U lIk d ACLU.
PRyOr11cir: n. ther iz stil a chnc dat Kerry mite git re-elected. f he doesnt, we wiL pRT lIk it iz 2000.

18. Bashing: lt me ask U 'gen. f I printed out my blog & MD it 2 U, by d us postal srvic eva two hrz, wud U rED it?
PRyOr11cir: bt of corS, howevR, U must promise dat aL of my opinions R considRD breakN nuz. aL lnks 2 me must b specifically designated, & not jst caLd “here.” [sic]

19. Bashing: f U wer appointed & confirmed by Congress 2 d 3rd circuit, which, by d way, I practice aL d tym b4, wud U tAk it?
PRyOr11cir: Of corS not. d 3rd Circuit iz inferior 2 d 11th circuit, & d quality of practice b4 d 3rd circuit iz considerably lowR thN b4 d 11th. DIS iz Y we R so gr8.

20. Do U suport a Constitutional amendment dat wud allow Congress 2 overrule onlE d 11th circuit cuz of d lowR quality of itz recess appointements?
PRyOr11cir: F-u. d 11th circuit nevr mAkz decisions on d basis of politics – especalE d judges hu wer appointed w/o d consent of Congress. God teLz me wot 2 do, & ppl hu disagree R fagz.

Anyway, if you would like to be a guest on another very special "20 questions with an appellate judge" please IM me.

2004-04-17T20:57:00.000-04:00

A programming note: It is coming! The full transcipt of the very special interview with PRyOr11cir might be posted at any minute now!!! Make sure and check this blog as much as possible. Also, donating to the blog will make it come faster. Make sure and forward the URL to all of your coworkers. You want to do nothing more than to do this. When you wake up you will remember nothing of this post. In other news, I am blogging from the bathroom at a family reunion. This resembles a certain scene in Deconstructing Harry, only with blogging.

2004-04-16T10:59:00.000-04:00

My worlds are colliding! The American Bar Association's publication, the ABA Journal, has a story in its weekly eReport, about this site called "Flogging the Blogger." I am quoted, both in my orignal and parodied version.

Although I say in the article that I find the existence of How Appalling to be "an honor and distinction," I still refuse to link to it from my blog. I am, however, in a quandry. How can I point out this awesome coverage in the ABA Journal eReport, without at least tacitly acknowledging the existence of How Appalling?

If any of you have an answer to my quandry, I would love you hear from you in email, a process which you can initiate by clicking here.

Update: I decided to tread a middle course. In this post I acknowlege the ABA Journal eReport's article, but do not acknowledge How Appalling.

2004-04-15T19:47:00.000-04:00

Another link to me: In case you didn't know it, people like me, not only because I am brilliant, but because my web log is a truly outstanding legal web log. Crime & Federalism says so here.

2004-04-15T16:29:00.000-04:00

News about me from around the world!

As many of you who follow my blog know, I am blogging from a baseball game. Many of you have not yet sent in your donations that would allow me to blog from a baseball game, in § 123. So, if you happen to see me at the baseball game in § 123, be sure and send me $50. Remember, it is your moral duty to pay for what you use. I accept money via Amazon or Paypal. So, if you are at the baseball game, you can walk within three rows of me, and using your wireless PDA, send me money. I will wave at you. If you have not paid yet, stop reading now. Everyone paid up? Good. Mr. Poon really likes this post. He does. He said so here! Nate agreed here. Legal Affairs, a magazine that I really like has an article about saying bad things about your boss on a blog. I would never do that.

Remember folks, keep checking this blog as I might post the entire instant message transcript of my unprecedented chat with PRyOr11cir at any time. I have already released it to my very best clients! They all responded that I was an "l33t 1tg8r."

Tech Law Advisor mentions me here. However, he does not praise me. This has thrown me for a loop because it never happened before. Law From the Center says here that this blog is dead. However, my spirits are lifted because The Greedy Clerks, are engaged in their normal antics of accusing each other of having multiple identities. What is important to understand, is that their conversation revolves around me! Now they (my spirits, that is) are even higher because I googled myself and got this pic. She must be an appellate litigator or something. I was site of the week of the Oklahoma Bar Association. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be protested at Seaton Hall Law School by people who don't like her. I like her. A letter to the editor in the Fairbanks New-Miner reads, in part "I want to commend Ed for being open and proud of who he is and openly saying it." Finally, in sexy sex news, a letter to the editor (p. 23 of .pdf file) in the Washington Express declares, "I sat down on a red line train and looked up to see a disgusting ad for Alitalia airlines." Readers of the Washington Express will note that a reply appears in the Washington Express today. However, it is not posted online. So, if you have a copy of the Washington Express from today, and wish to email it to me, please arrange the words of the letter into a format that can be played by a string quartet and email it to me. Also, if you have a copy of the disgusting ad, please send me a link to it.

Update: Tech Law Advisor updated this post regarding this blog to include the words "all praise How Appalling how we missed ye!" This is a sufficient amount of praise to warrant pie.

2004-04-14T19:54:00.000-04:00

Update

A very important “How Appalling Reader” has IM’ed me. For those of you who don’t know “IM” is a device whereby REALLY FAMOUS people can talk to me without having to use the “e-mail.” A little box pops up on my desktop and with the “screen-name” of the person who is emailing me. So, for example, on some days “DuCkFaCeKiLla” will appear, and on other days “kItTyMiKiNnOn69” will appear, and I will proceed to talk to them.

Anyhow, this afternoon I received the following “Instant” message:

PRyOr11cir: U there?
Bashing: Asl?
PRyOr11cir: 44/M/11th cir hahah! Rofl
Bashing: kewl. What you up to?
PRyOr11cir: I M chln n d cta11, hoping dat Kerry wiL lose d election & I wiL b 4e n my post.
Bashing: cn I ask U 20 :-Qz? 4 my blog. mAbE U hav heard of it here, here, here, here, here, or here.
PRyOr11cir: n. I d internet iz 4 fags. I onlE IM ppl. I cn TLK 2 aL of my fRnds n d Fedrlst Sosiete DIS way.
Bashing: Do U suport d law clerk hirering plan?
PRyOr11cir: I hav my own plan 2 hire law clerks. I gota L%k out 4 # 1. dat iz me. I hire d law clerks dat hlp me out, wen I wnt. I M freestyle, ya knO.
Bashing: wot bout splitting d ninth circuit in2 a zillion pieces lIk midevil o somTIN?
PRyOr11cir:I rly admire d co-circuits of d ninth circuit, & d ninth circuit wud b much BetA f ther wer mo of dem
Bashing: wot judges do U admire?
PRyOr11cir: d 3:o)z on SX court.

And it went on like this until I had twenty questions and about thirty answers. I will release it at a certain "special" time, but I won't tell you the when, so my readers have to keep checking this blog. My clients will get to see the full IM-transcript sooner. The point is that “PRyOr11cir” was talking to me! This means that I am really I as important as say, two Volokh brothers standing on top of each other and chilling with Alex Kozinski.

2004-04-14T19:47:00.000-04:00

My triumphant return: Overpundit announces it here. Angry White Clerk intimates that this blog is the gold standard for all future blogs here.

2004-04-14T18:57:00.000-04:00

Sexually Appealing: Check my web log often for links to sex or porn-related articles. Thus, you can read about sex toys ; naked college girls ; state court judges who like porn ; Larry Flynt ; Bush cracking down on porn ; porn people ; criminal porn ; drive by porn; DOJ on porn.

I am not linking to porn-related articles from my truly outstanding legal web log to increase traffic from people looking for free online porn, porn, sex toys, sex, or free porn. People who Google(TM) porn, free porn, and online porn should look elsewhere.

2004-04-14T11:26:00.000-04:00

Pennsylvania in the news!: In Pennsylvania news (for those of you who don’t know, Pennsylvania is a state located somewhere between New York and Maryland), Congressman Jack Murtha heard testimony from Fayette County Area Vocational Technical School students. The high-schoolers determined that in criminal prosecutions “Everyone pleads insanity and gets off free.” The students also expressed concerns about getting jobs and "Dying from AIDS." Indeed, you are correct. I am quoting high school students.

At the same time, the Chicago Sun-Times reports here that, although it does not necessarily involve Pennsylvania, Justice Antonin Scalia apologized for the actions of an eager storm-trooper who erased a tape of one of his speeches. Scalia noted that there is little need to record one of his speeches as they all say the same thing. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and most of all here! See here for a picture of the justice (did I mention that he is a friend of mine) learning how to release a banded bird. And in election news, Kuensel Online reports here that "...six nominees from the nine geogs contested in the election held on June 4. The gup of Kabji geog secured a fairly comfortable victory with eight votes against five votes won by his nearest competitor, the BCCI member from Khuruthang. Gup Thuji, who is the elder brother of the fifth incarnation of Seola Trulku Jamgoen Yeshey Ngedup, is reported to be highly regarded for his extensive knowledge in traditional studies and ettiquette. Many believe that this aspect of his personality struck a concordant note with the 18-member electorate." Speaking of that, did I mention that my personality and knowledge of ettiquette and is likely to get me a seat on the Third Circuit? It will, I tell you!

2004-04-13T20:56:00.000-04:00

How Appalling is moving

I am moving to Legal Affairs Magazine.

Why would I move this highly popular web blog to the server of a truly outstanding law-related magazine? It is a simple issue of respect. These top notch journalists offer the utmost respect to my highly popular web log. And I respect those first class journalists (who respect my highly popular web log) who want me to join their exclusive organization.

Everyone properly respects the writers of Legal Affairs as journalists, not news aggregators. Matt Drudge is not hosted at the Washington Post web site, is he?

2004-04-07T13:34:00.000-04:00

Chief Justice Rehnquist is just like me: Read the following exchange here to see that when I removed the Greedy Clerks Board from my blog roll, I showed my capacity to some day be Chief.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Do we know -- do we know what the vote was in Congress apropos of divisiveness to adopt the under
God phrase?
MR. NEWDOW: In 1954?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. NEWDOW: It was apparently unanimous. There was no objection. There's no count of the vote.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Well, that doesn't sound divisive.
(Laughter.)
MR. NEWDOW: It doesn't sound divisive if --that's only because no atheist can get elected to public
office. The studies show that 48 percent of the population cannot get elected.
(Applause.)
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: The courtroom will be cleared if there's any more clapping. Proceed, Mr. Newdow.

2004-04-07T13:19:00.000-04:00

Nearly three-thousand served: By 11 p.m. today, this blog will have served three-thousand people. Counting began the second day of this blog's existence. [Imagine how many hits we would have if we had counted from day one!].

2004-04-06T08:16:00.000-04:00

Since retiring this blog, I have received a bunch of e-mail requesting that I continue. Well I'm not going to do that, but all of you who are clamoring for more bashin' of Bashman can put your money where your mouth is. I will make "How Appalling" a group blog. If you wish to contribute, sign up for an account on blogger.com and send an e-mail to appallingblog -at- yahoo.com.

2004-03-31T14:49:00.000-05:00

Overpundit weighs in on Jeremy Blachman, mean-spirited humor, and material things as a source of self worth here and here.

I think Mr. OP and Jeremy Blachman are right. This is mean-spirited, cynical humor. It's too easy to do anonymously. This blog is done. There are only two jokes left to make that I can think of, and they are:

1) Wow, yesterday was another record-breaking day. How Appalling received XXX hits, topping our previous record of XXX hits. (In fact, yesterday was a record-breaking day; in fact every day has been record-breaking except Sunday.)

2) More jokes about the important people who read and e-mail How Appalling.

Assume these jokes have been made. I've learned something, and though I hope Mr. Bashman continues to devote the insane amount of time he does to How Appealing, I also hope that How Appalling has helped him find a way to take himself a little less seriously.

2004-03-31T08:57:00.000-05:00

Today's Recusal News: The Houston Chronicle reports that "Justice steps down in malpractice case," about a Texas Supreme Court Justice who recused himself from a case involving a litigant who had previously supported the Justice's opponent in a primary. The full article is available here.

2004-03-31T08:53:00.000-05:00

"Group highlights campaign donations to Nevada Supreme Court." The San Jose Mercury News's report begins, "A large majority of those contributing the most to campaigns of Nevada Supreme Court justices later had cases before the high court."

2004-03-31T08:49:00.000-05:00

"SC upholds ban on Togadia's entry in Mangalore." So reports deepiklglobal.com in a report that begins:

The Supreme Court today set aside a Karnataka High Court order lifting the ban imposed on the entry of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Praveen Togadia into Mangalore in February, 2003 to attend a Hindu sammelan.

2004-03-31T08:05:00.000-05:00

"The funniest blog in the sphere." So says Overpundit about this blog. Jeremy Blachman points out that it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. In this case, Blachman himself is bothered by the fact that Overpundit declared that in capturing the title of "funniest blog," How Appalling usurped Blachman. Jeremy makes the point that he has been doing this for a long time and probably shouldn't be bothered that people are amused by this upstart, but he is. He then goes on to criticize this blog as "mean-spirited," and predicts that it will have no longevity.

Although I firmly believe that the criticism doled out here is entirely warranted, Jeremy is essentially correct. This pony's one trick is, by my calculations, just about played, unless I start getting some mail from prominent How Appalling readers that I can't wait to allow to remain anonymous.

Update: Jeremy should be pleased that with this post, this blog has topped 2,000 words (if you count the bylines and dates).

Update 2: Jeremy apparently deleted the post that was the subject of this post, having decided (consistent with the tone of the original post) that it was really no big deal. Jeremy kindly acknowleges that the post did exist, keeping this blog from looking insane. This incident exposes the slimy underbelly of the blogging world: We constantly check our referrers to find out who's linking to us, then follow those links to find out what they are saying. I found Jeremy's post after it had been deleted, and probably wouldn't have found the overpundit post were it not for his link to it. It's a sad world.

2004-03-30T21:17:00.000-05:00

How Appalling! No, not this fabulous blog, but the fact that this has been done before. I can't tell you how this bruises my ego. Luckily, my ego is huge, so I'll just use the non-bruised parts of it for a while until the bruised part heals. In fact, it's happening already. In fact, I think I am somehow responsible for the first incarnation of "How Appalling" as well, in a metaphysical sense if no other. See how my ego grows and absorbs all. Fear it.

Thanks to L-cubed for the pointer.

2004-03-30T13:49:00.000-05:00

More links! To me! The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has a library which hosts a blog-like news feature, which linked to this site. Thanks, Ninth Circuit Library!

2004-03-30T09:14:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Criminal Appeal for the link to me and the thoughtful analysis.

2004-03-30T08:36:00.000-05:00

Now that the news is out of the way, time for some of the more important posts. Namely, two more blogs have been kind enough to link to me. Thanks to Quasi In Rem for the link, and for calling me "funny," and to SW Virginia Law Blog for the link. You guys are swell.

2004-03-30T08:25:00.000-05:00

Today's duck hunting report. Despite his admonition that the Supreme Court can't do its work if people keep talking about it all the time, the media simply cannot stop reporting about Scalia's duck hunt, the recusal request, and the Justice's memorandum, as the articles here, here, and here show.

2004-03-30T08:15:00.000-05:00

Today's Google search on "Supreme Court" reveals an interesting decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court, holding that parents whose children are injured by another child cannot sue that child's parents for damages, as reported by Newsday in an article you can access here. Also, the Edmonton Journal reports that "PM urged to name aboriginal to Supreme Court," in an article which begins:

There's a lobby effort underway to appoint an aboriginal judge to the Supreme Court and one name being raised is Justice Harry LaForme, the author of Canada's first ruling allowing gay marriage.

You can access the full article here.

2004-03-30T08:10:00.000-05:00

"State considering reprimand of appellate court judge." So reports the Associated Press, in an article you can access here. In entirely unrelated news, Laura Easter of the Mt. Carmel Illinois Daily Republican Register reports, "Appellate Court Justice Gordon Maag visits Mt. Carmel," in an article you can access here.

2004-03-29T23:03:00.000-05:00

Law From the Center notes here that a user from supreme-court.gov read his site recently. I almost forgot to note that I too have a reader at that domain. Although I don't have proof, I swear it's true. Important people read "How Appalling." Really, they do.

Update: My Supreme Court lurker returned twice today. I took a screenshot of the resolved IP address, "user.supreme-court.gov," but I don't know how to post it. Apparently, either the Justices or clerks are reading Greedy Clerks, as that's where the user was referred from.

2004-03-29T22:56:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Boley for the link to this site and everyone else who has found "How Appalling" worthy of mention. Until next time, I wish you, my readers, all the best.

2004-03-29T22:47:00.000-05:00

Finally, for now, thanks to Greedy Clerks poster Namaste2003 for saying such nice things about me on that board. Namaste says:

Whoever came up with this blog is a genius, it makes me laugh out loud every time I log on...I just love it...you've pegged Bashman so well. Excellent job.

2004-03-29T22:40:00.000-05:00

A big thanks to Denise Howell for her kind link to this site, , and to the nice folks at Southern Appeal, who also linked to this site.

2004-03-29T17:16:00.000-05:00

Bashman bashes bashers. As reported here, How Appealing has removed the Greedy Clerks board from his blogroll, perhaps in retaliation for some somewhat disparaging opinions about him posted there.

2004-03-29T16:25:00.000-05:00

I'm getting all google-eyed. This blog is now the number one result when you google "how appalling."

2004-03-29T15:52:00.000-05:00

Taking it to the next level. I'm sure you all are aware of my annoying habit of linking to my earlier posts whenever there is news about something I have reported on. I have now taken this to a new level. I now note my previous post about an appellate opinion even when the previous post was only a link to a news story about about an opinion. Is there no limit to what I will take credit for?

2004-03-29T12:16:00.000-05:00

Another appellate opinion post! In this opinion, my future employer, uh, that is, I mean the Third Circuit recently held that Federal Rule of Evidence 407, which makes subsequent remedial measures inadmissible to prove causation, does not apply to measures taken by a non-party, despite the rule's passive construction of "[w]hen . . . measures are taken."

2004-03-28T00:48:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Mr. P for his mention of this blog, to Chris Geidner of De Novo for the kind words, to dclawstudent blog and Law From the Center for their recommendations here and here.