Via Bitch, PhD. an interesting addition to the Maureen Dowd pile-on that's occurring in various sections of the blogosphere. Lindsay Beyerstein asks:

Who gets called frivolous, and what for? Usually, we associate frivolity with gossip, fashion magazines, and giggling. But if we think about what frivolity is and why it's bad, it's clear that men are equally prone to this vice. Frivolity is an excessive and/or situationally inappropriate preoccupation with amusing trivia. There's nothing inherently gendered about the concept. Yet, a guy is unlikely to be dismissed as frivolous if he's excessively preoccupied with poker, sports stats, or horse race politics.

Keeping that firmly in mind, go wander over to the Comments section of Orin Kerr's A3G-unmasking link. This one, by TL, for example:

However, I also agree that it is now kind of disturbing to now know that the pink cascade, and all the sight-ations, and "super-hottie" remarks came from a dude. It made me realize that very gender specific humor exists, even in a (somewhat) serious environment like legal gossip. The little quirks of the other seemed cute or amusing when thinking of them flowing from the works of a female.

Or this one, by Duras:

UTR was (is?) one of the most hilarious and entertaining sights on the net (possibly the most entertaining) AND very informative and sophisticated as well. This revelation, if true (please, please, please, let it not be so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) is indeed VERY disturbing. The humor is intensely gender specific and that which is histarical and appealing coming from a girl (or someone one believes to be a girl) is, uhm..., something less coming from a guy.

Just... interesting.

In the recent NYT article (blogged here) about YLS attitudes toward Alito, Stephen Townley was quoted thus:

Students these days make jokes at Justice Thomas's expense, said Stephen Townley, a third-year student. "It's a question about intellectual rigor."

I do NOT believe that Justice Clarence Thomas, or his opinions, lack intellectual rigor, nor do I think that is what YLS students believe.

Does the U.S. Constitution guarantee birthright citizenship? I have some extended thoughts up at Originalisms in response to Angus's post here.

Casanova in Bolzano - Sandor Marai

Casanova in Bolzano is not so much a novel as an extended meditation on the nature of love set within a flimsy framing device. If that sounds appealing, you'll probably like the novel--Marai's thoughts on love, jealousy, old age and seduction are both reasonably thoughtful and reasonably witty--but if you're dubious, you're probably unlikely to get over the way Marai suspends the story for a third of the book to give a hereforto minor character a fifty page monologue.

Yes. :) I'm personally more interested that the Court dismissed Maryland v. Blake after hearing oral argument in it, myself. Is that unusual?

Is this the first non-unanimous opinion the Supreme Court has issued this term?

Jeff Toobin has this short New Yorker piece interviewing one David Lat who admits to being Article III Groupie, the author of Underneath Their Robes. The rumor that Lat (a YLS grad) was Article III Groupie has bumped around the law school for a while, but others resolutely insisted that A3G was really Judge Kozinski.

A3G has not yet confirmed the claim blog-side, but the observation is consistent with the IP addresses that both I and Howard Bashman logged from emails from A3G. For more perhaps-true information about A3G, see Part I and Part II of Crescat's interview with him/her.

Thanks to Josh Chafetz for the link.

UPDATE: There's a thread of further information at How Appealing.

UPDATE TWO: A3G confirms that she is indeed David Lat. Sort of:

It's not fair to say that I "am" A3G. With apologies for this self-aggrandizing (but helpful) comparison, one would not say that Nabokov "was" Humbert Humbert or that J.K. Rowling "is" Harry Potter. A3G is, like Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court, "h[er] own [wo]man." Like Judge Posner's cat Dinah (also featured in the New Yorker -- with a picture), A3G is fiercely independent and answers to no one. In fact, when I have something to report to A3G, I email her about it -- just like any other reader of UTR.
Thus, my persistent denials of being A3G have been, in a technical and perhaps Clintonian sense, quite correct. My opinions and those of A3G are not exactly the same. In fact, some of the people that A3G has offered snarky commentary on are people for whom I harbor admiration, affection, or both. In short, A3G does as she pleases, and I cannot be blamed or held accountable for any of her misdeeds, indiscretions, or occasional vulgarity.