Celebrity Follies: Britney Spears nixed her suicide ... video, that is [patterned on Leaving Las Vegas] . Tom Cruise fired a key assistant because of criticism over Tom's emphasis on Scientology. Julia Roberts (no not that one; a NC 96 year old grandmother) was charged with crack possession. The President's press secretary's father released a conspiracy account of how LBJ was behind the JFK assassination. And after a defendant made a crack at her about oral sex, a local judge [allegedly] commented that he was too small for her.

---

God's Justice: A judge in North Carolina got in some trouble by suggesting that "so help you God" not be used as the default oath [not prohibited, though that is how it was spun by some], one of various ways he proposed to deal with the more diverse clientele that use the courts. It is an example how people do not like you to remove the remaining establishments of religion in this country. The idea that the judge was acting in the interests of "non-Christians" was troubling though, since not only do many Christians oppose oaths [e.g. Quakers; see also, Art. II of the Constitution with its "affirmation" alternative to the Presidential Oath], but many non-Christians do not mind it (not only Christians believe in God!). Finally, it is to be noted that a non-religious oath is somewhat of a contradiction in terms -- it is an "affirmation," since an oath is a "swearing" act that implies the presence of a deity.

[Update: As related in the comments to the original posting of the story (see link) and to me personally, the trend has been away from "so help me God" oaths, though their popularity does depend on the locale.]
---

Snarky Judges: Researching another matter, I came across a narrowly divided (11-9) appellate refusal for re-hearing of an important Miranda (confession rules) case involving the use of trickery during an interrogation. The dissent raises an important, if debatable point, one even one of the original concurring judges agreed was troubling. Thus, this makes the snarky concurrence particularly troubling, the snarkiness suggested by this passage: "But we are not free to rewrite the law. And that is where I part company with Judge Trott and his merry band of dissenters." "Merry" they were not in this particular case, but this opinion suggests snarkiness among the judiciary is not just the realm of Justice Scalia. It remains amusing, but on some basic level one would hope that judges did not write with the maturity of little children sticking their tongues out at people they don't like.