"nonsense upon stilts"

it is almost 2am and i am admittedly a little punch drunk. but i find the way that supreme court justices beat up on one another in their opinions sometimes to be terribly amusing and no one is here for me to tell about this right now. all my compadres are going with the "i have morning exams at some point and want to get on a regular sleep schedule" theory of exam studying. i am more of a "take it when i can get it" girl (and yes, this does apply to other parts of my life as well--just ask w). so if i'm on a roll and no one else is here to distract me, i can go all night.

but not necessarily in any coherent fashion, as evidenced by this post, which is beginning to sound suspiciously like legalese. not fucking cool.

so anyways, i'm reading this case where justice o'connor does a big no-no, at least acacording to my first year writing prof. she cites webster's dictionary as the source of defining certain words. the idaho law allows the phrase "utter disregard for human life" to be used as an aggravating factor sufficient for the death penalty, as the state's supreme court construed the language to refer only to "the cold-blooded, pitiless slayer." still with me? good.

she says that this passes muster because it works a meaningful narrowing on the body of murderers who are eligible for the death penalty. after all, she argues, a cold-blooded pitiless slayer is someone who kills without feeling or sympathy. some killers are angry, or jealous, or vengeful. these things are bad and nasty, but are at least some kind of feeling.

callousness is a state of mind that can be shown by the surrounding circumstances. and in this case, those circumstances are nightmare-inducingly bad and described in graphic detail. the killer was a guy who killed at least 27 people. 11 bodies were found in 7 different states. he said that if he was not completely isolated from society he would most definitely kill again, and specified 3 people on the outside who he would go after if he ever got out. the murder he got the death penalty for was of a fellow inmate. depending on which version of his story you believe, he aranged for this hapless fellow to be provided with a weapon that he could try to attack him with, which would justify the murder by self defense. he beat the guy over the head with a sock full of batteries until the plate in his head smashed. then, when the victim was totally helpless, he kicked him about the head and throat. they brought him to the hospital after a guard finally noticed the copious amounts of blood, and he died the same day.

anyway, o'connor does some crazy contortionist shit to show how clear and non-subjective this is as a standard. then blackmun calls her out. he says that her "reconstruction only highlights the deficient character of the nebulous formation that it seeks to advance." like "nonsense on stilts." fucking priceless.

this is how demented law school has made me. i can wring humor out of the utterly deranged.