Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
First, there was “Memogate,” in which some Senate Republican staffers stole briefing memos about judicial nominees from the computers of Senate Democrats, and tried to foster a scandal over their contents. Then, there was “Memogate II,” in which other Republican staffers circulated a memo suggesting that politicizing the death of Terri Schiavo represented a “great political issue” to rally the party’s right-wing base. But these scandals have nothing on E-mailgate — wherein a U.S. Supreme Court intern recently leaked to the media the contents of an intra-justice electronic dispute over where to take a group of visiting Irish jurists to lunch. From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 24, 2005 RE: Lunch?? Colleagues: Where should we take these Irish judges to lunch next week? Suggestions? Cordially JPS
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 24, 2005 RE: RE: Lunch?? I can’t say yet. Why don’t you all weigh in and I’ll cast the deciding vote? Tee hee. Sandy
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 24, 2005 RE: Out of Office AutoResponse I am out of the office until June 7, 2005, on a seven-state NASCAR tour in my vast converted tour bus. Please refer any constitutional questions you may have in the interim to the Framers. Clarence
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 24, 2005 RE: RE: RE: Lunch?? How about one of Cafe Berlin, Bistro Bis, or La Coline? Bien sur, the bouillabaisse at the latter is magnifique. Best, “Antoine” Kennedy
From: [email protected] scotus.gov To: [email protected]; [email protected] Date: May 24, 2005 RE: With the Frenchie Crap again!!??! You swishy little Euro-wimp. What the heck is wrong with American restaurants? Are we really going to bind ourselves, yet again, by what a bunch of foreigners would do? This is an American court, operating on American soil, under the provisions of an American constitution. The very idea of entertaining Irish visitors next week at all is evidence of the shallow, faddish, follow-the-crowd internationalism threatening the core foundations of American Constitutionalism today. I vote for Applebee’s in Chevy Chase. The one with the onion flowers. Nino
From: [email protected] scotus.gov To: [email protected] Date: May 25, 2005 RE: A compromise solution It seems to me that there are at least four ways in which we can analyze this question. Let’s assume, for a moment, that — as in Justice Scalia’s last hypothetical — Applebee’s were located on the moon. But, located on an American colony on the moon, in which federal jurisdiction was exclusively American, except maybe in matters of sentencing guidelines or conflicts over the density of the atmosphere. Lunar law would control in those areas. My question, if you are still following me, is whether moon colony or Applebee’s law could pre-empt federal law? Please consult the attached 14-page memorandum for further discussion of this and other hypotheticals. Yours, Steve P.S.: I vote for Bullfeathers.
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 25, 2005 RE: RE: A compromise solution Dear Colleagues: Sorry, but I will be unable to join you for dinner. I will, as usual, be enjoying my apple and yogurt, while hiding out under my desk. Sincerely, David Souter
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 26, 2005 RE: Ad Hominem Attacks Nino: I don’t imagine it occurs to you that the French were making bouillabaisse back when savages were eating nuts and berries in this country? Bouillabaisse is part of a vast and sweeping tapestry of history and culture — all the richness of the world’s finest minds and notions, heightened by the sweetness of human dignity and worth and . . . um . . . more dignity that represents the highest human achievement of our time. That you seek to sweep French cuisine into the dusty corners of history is yet more evidence of a creeping isolationism that imperils the very freedom you so claim to cherish. Cheers, Antoine
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 26, 2005 RE: Originalism The Framers would have executed a 16-year-old before they would touch bouillabaisse. Just FYI. AS
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 26, 2005 RE: Evolving standards Which is why it falls on us, as judges, to determine whether the standards of delicious have changed . . .
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 26, 2005 RE: RE: Ad Hominem Attacks Activist.
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 26, 2005 RE: RE: RE: Ad Hominem Attacks Neanderthal.
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 27, 2005 RE: RE: RE: RE: Ad Hominem Attacks I vote for Applebee’s with Nino. Their nachos supremos rock. RBG
From: E[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 27, 2005 RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ad Hominem Attacks We seem to be having trouble reaching a consensus. Any thoughts on how to resolve? JPS
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 27, 2005 RE: Consensus Attached please find a 17-page Excel spreadsheet and accompanying PowerPoint presentation containing my thoughts on how to achieve consensus in this matter, while fixing the federal sentencing guidelines at the same time. Steve
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 28, 2005 RE: RE: Consensus Activist meddlers. Leave it to the legislatures to decide.
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 28, 2005 RE: Majority Opinion Actually, I think we should leave it to ME to decide and I think that for just this one dinner, under these very specific facts, and weighing all of the factors in a carefully calibrated balancing test that will never be applicable to any other set of facts ever again, we should go for appetizers at Bullfeathers, entrees at La Coline, then ice cream sundaes at Applebee’s, but not the one in Chevy Chase; the one in Fairfax. Imperially yours, Sandy
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 28, 2005 RE: Textualism Sandy: Are you going to read the menu as sloppily as you read Title IX in Jackson v. Birmingham? Just wondering, Clarence
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: May 29, 2005 RE: Assignments I’ve tried to keep track of the voting in this matter, and believe the opinion writing can be assigned as it was in Smith v. City of Jackson, that is, we can handily dispose of this problem if Justice Stevens writes Parts I, II, and IV but not III, and Justice Scalia concurs only in part, and Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Thomas write separate concurrences, and I remain at home. If that is acceptable to everyone, please advise. Dahlia Lithwick is a senior editor and Supreme Court correspondent for Slate. She is co-author of “Me v. Everybody” (Workman Publishing Co.). E-mail: [email protected].

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.