Comments on: Dirty Pool

By: Kenny Easwaran

Kenny Easwaran — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 05:11:12 +0000

I keep expecting a disclaimer to come along in each paragraph as I read through. But it never quite reaches Onion-like proportions. Is this really real? And if so, is Clarence Thomas really that bad?

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:23:45 +0000

G—I personally would find small bets exciting because I just plain enjoy being right. For no reason whatsoever, I suspect that Supreme Court Justices share this trait with philosophers, so they would find small bets exciting too. (And I don’t make bets on the election, because I suspect I wouldn’t enjoy the outcome.)

By: g

Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:27:34 +0000

n: Maybe I’m just psychologically distoibed; I don’t find that betting a small amount of money is any more exciting than betting no money (or matchsticks, or abstract points, or whatever), but I can see how putting some serious money on the line might add a certain buzz. Perhaps that’s unusual; if Rehnquist et al differ from me in this respect then my kinda-sorta-expectation would be wrong.

By: 2718

2718 — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:48:23 +0000

I hope the commentary is tongue-in-cheek. Though I agree that Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided, I don’t think it had anything to do with a harmless betting pool among the judges. In fact, the existence of this betting pool was reported around the time the Blackmun papers were released. It seemed unremarkable then, and it seems so now. The Judges are serious people who would not let their vote be swayed by a betting pool. (Of course, there is a deeper question about what motivations the judges did have. Still, I think the judges, themselves, genuinely believed they were doing the best thing for the country.) If we stop believing that our political opponents are not, at least, decent people, then in Jon Stewart’s words, “We’re in bad shape fellas.” Now, if this post is meant to mock the kind of quick-trigger document-waiving that passes for debate in the news culture, then it’s dead on!

By: 2718

2718 — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:46:16 +0000

By: Chris Lawrence

Chris Lawrence — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:39:45 +0000

I personally enjoyed footnote #5. Actually I don’t know how I missed this one in my current PS (I just stuck it up on the shelf today after skimming it Wednesday when I got it).

By: n

Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:38:55 +0000

I’d kinda-sorta expect the SCOTUS members to bet larger sums if they were going to play for money at all
Why would you expect this? Seems like a weird expectation. Playing for money doesn’t have to be serious; injecting just a little bit of money makes it exciting, and thus fun, without the downer of losing your shirt. Since lawyers are usually risk-averse people, I would fully expect them to bet tiny amounts (if at all).

By: g

Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:09:05 +0000

Forgive me for stating the excessively obvious (and for being hoaxed if I am being) … but it occurs to me that (1) those are awfully small sums of money, (2) I’d kinda-sorta expect the SCOTUS members to bet larger sums if they were going to play for money at all, (3) I’d also expect them to abbreviate their bets both for convenience and so as to be less embarrassing if the thing got discovered, and (4) if there’s any truth mixed in with the satire of the commentary, then larger sums provide better explanations than smaller ones. So … perhaps those numbers really represent thousands of dollars?

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:58:06 +0000

The commentary is tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but the evidence of the Supreme Court betting pool is 100% legit.

By: neil

neil — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:19:37 +0000

This has got to be some sort of sick joke. Pete Rose, eat your heart out.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:14:14 +0000

Great satire. Funny stuff ;)

By: Jackmormon

Jackmormon — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:38:48 +0000

This is a wonderful find. All hail the archive.

By: decon

decon — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:51:08 +0000

Perhaps Rhenquist and Thomas have graduated to TradeSports. No wonder the Bush EC prices have been so whacked.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:45:55 +0000

“The net result is that Sandra has won $18.30, Harry has won $1.70, John and I have lost $6.30, Tony has lost $2.30, and Clarence has lost $5.10.” That’s fantastic! O’Connor kicked everyone’s ass, and Rhenquist, Stevens and of course Thomas are totally out of it.