I'm taking a course in food and drug law this semester, which has turned out to be a lot of fun. Reading the casebook, I came across this excerpt from a deposition. I think it speaks for itself;

Q. Mr. Konicov, does your firm still market a tape called "Astro Sounds"?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. How does it differ from the other tapes?

A. It's just a bunch of loud, squeaky noises.

Q. And what is it supposed to do?

A. I don't know.

Q. Why do you sell the tape if you don't know what it does or purports to do?

A. Why?

Q. Yes.

A. To give people a choice to buy it or not to buy it.

One thing that hadn't yet been swiped from the bound volume mentioned below was a TRB column from April 28, 1973, just after San Antonio v. Rodriguez came out. [That was the case where the Supreme Court declined to strike down property-tax-based systems of local school funding, despite gross inequalities.] Now-silent co-blogger Amanda and I have gone several rounds over some version of this, but as she cannot fight back at the moment, I won't dig into the merits again.

I was, however, struck by this contention in the article:

The old liberal Warren Court-- the Court that voted unanimously in Brown vs. Board of Education that segregated schools are uncosntitutional-- would almost certainly have held with Rodriguez that education is a "fundamental right" under the constitution.

What bounder, what despicable person, has been ripping legal articles out of the bound copies of The New Republic in the Sterling Memorial Library? I will admit to being a mite rougher on books than I have any right to be, but this bespeaks a campaign of censorship or thievery.

[Chasing down a footnote in John Hart Ely's note on Roe v. Wade, I discovered that oddly page 9-- the page he cited-- of the 2/10/73 issue was ripped cleanly out. Paging through, I discovered an article be then-retired-Justice Goldberg arguing that the Supreme Court was not overworked. Also, gone. Most of Alexander Bickel's reply was left, though. A similar fate had afflicted other legal articles throughout the volume. What is afoot?]

A reader asked me via email a few days ago what I would read for coverage of the Booker decision besides Professor Berman's blog. While I have skimmed links at the Blakely Blog, How Appealing and SCOTUS Blog, in truth I will never be able to read as fast as Professor Berman and his commenters write, anyway.

I should note that if you are reading Professor Berman's blog without reading the comments, you are missing a great deal of fascinating commentary, discussion, and on-the-ground reaction. The signal to noise ratio is quite high.