NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/05/supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-surgery-pancreatic-cancer/

Given that pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly types of cancer, and one of the most arduous types to fight, and that she has already been treated for colon cancer in '99, I wonder if she might step down. If she doesn't, I wonder if she might be ever-so diplomatically leaned on to step down, so that Pres. B. Hussein Obama can nominate a Supreme Court Justice. Wouldn't that put the fox in among the chickens? And just when you thought all the political excitement was over, and we could all step back and take a breath. For those who don't live in the U.S., or who have blocked the previous nomination processes from their minds, a quick primer:

Certain seasons or events have historically spawned their own lexicons which are unique to those events and used almost exclusively to describe them. Late in the college football season, some games have what are unfailingly called, "serious bowl implications." Likewise vice-presidential candidates must possess 'gravitas' and Super Bowls oddly acquire roman numerals. So too, does the Supreme Court nomination process require its own terminology.

There are a number of ordinary words and phrases that will be used ad nauseam. They will however take on some unfamiliar connotations in the course of being repeated in endless web-postings, editorials and what passes for debate in the world's greatest deliberative body.

This process begins with identifying senators with whom liberals can reach a 'consensus.' Anyone they would deem an 'acceptable' Republican they can 'work with' is, of course, either a 'moderate' or a 'maverick.' Anyone else is a 'partisan,' an 'extremist' or more simply put, unwilling to 'compromise.'

'Mainstream' refers to a nominee who, in the event they possess the ability to pay their taxes, is to the political left of Barbara Boxer, whereas a 'radical' is someone who is to the political right of Barbara Boxer. Any nominee who has actually written an opinion that is 'out of the mainstream' will be referred to as 'flawed.'

'Out of the mainstream' also refers to those who are religious adherents, while those who have actually read, understood and follow the tenets of the U.S. Constitution are 'strict originalists' who would 'roll back rights.'

In the event that Justice Ginsburg does step down, watch for these and other appellations coming soon to a cable 'news' network near you.

I have a great respect for Justice Ginsburg, and regret that she is fallen ill. While I have no desire to wish ill on the woman, I am happy only that she has managed to retain her seat on the court this long, and did not step down a year ago.

She is a powerful voice on the court, and one of the great american jurists. When it comes her time to step down, her influence will be long missed.

Translation: Obama will pick 'activist judges' who 'legistlate from the bench!'


Its clear every time the supreme court is talked about that most conservatives havent read or dont understand the constitution. I look foward to them proving all my suspicions about their constitutional ineptitude right.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/05/supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-surgery-pancreatic-cancer/

Given that pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly types of cancer, and one of the most arduous types to fight, and that she has already been treated for colon cancer in '99, I wonder if she might step down.

This is a sad event and my sypathies go out to Justice Ginsburg.

It is unfortunate you seize on this illness as a opportunity to launch a political screed.

If she doesn't, I wonder if she might be ever-so diplomatically leaned on to step down, so that Pres. B. Hussein Obama can nominate a Supreme Court Justice. Wouldn't that put the fox in among the chickens? And just when you thought all the political excitement was over, and we could all step back and take a breath.

Fox among the chickens? WTF are you talking about?

For those who don't live in the U.S., or who have blocked the previous nomination processes from their minds, a quick primer:

*snip*

'Out of the mainstream' also refers to those who are religious adherents, while those who have actually read, understood and follow the tenets of the U.S. Constitution are 'strict originalists' who would 'roll back rights.'

I'd love to see you defend the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that this "strict construction" or "originalism" -- especially as applied by many members of the current U.S. Supreme Court. This judicial viewpoint is not only ideologically wrong, but is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution itself.

This is a sad event and my sypathies go out to Justice Ginsburg.

It is unfortunate you seize on this illness as a opportunity to launch a political screed.



Fox among the chickens? WTF are you talking about?



I'd love to see you defend the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that this "strict construction" or "originalism" -- especially as applied by many members of the current U.S. Supreme Court. This judicial viewpoint is not only ideologically wrong, but is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution itself.

don't you understand Cat Tribes? If a supreme court justice, with decades of experience in the law, says something about the constitution that some random guy on the internet, who has never so much as been to law school, thinks, then that judge MUST be wrong.

Because, after all, why sould we trust JUDGES when it comes to the constitution? I think a far more reliable source is some wanker on the internet.

I have a great respect for Justice Ginsburg, and regret that she is fallen ill. While I have no desire to wish ill on the woman, I am happy only that she has managed to retain her seat on the court this long, and did not step down a year ago.

She is a powerful voice on the court, and one of the great american jurists. When it comes her time to step down, her influence will be long missed.

^ This, pretty much exactly. :)

don't you understand Cat Tribes? If a supreme court justice, with decades of experience in the law, says something about the constitution that some random guy on the internet, who has never so much as been to law school, thinks, then that judge MUST be wrong.

Because, after all, why sould we trust JUDGES when it comes to the constitution? I think a far more reliable source is some wanker on the internet.
Internet wank is the new mysticism. It's true. It confers by revelation a level of wisdom and insight that mere education, training and decades worth of experience can never match. *nods*

In reference to the important part of this thread, I have greatly admired Justice Ginsberg and am grateful for her service. I wish her the best for her comfort and health.

It is unfortunate you seize on this illness as a opportunity to launch a political screed.

Yeah, I'm a terrible person, hanging my head in shame. I should really have behaved with the same class and sympathy that people on the opposite side of the aisle from him showed when Jesse Helms died..oh, wait http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560003&highlight=Jesse+Helms

Fox among the chickens? WTF are you talking about?

It's a figure of speech. You ever see a fox get into a henhouse? There's a whole lot of squawking and excitement to no real useful purpose.

Internet wank is the new mysticism. It's true. It confers by revelation a level of wisdom and insight that mere education, training and decades worth of experience can never match. *nods*

I think a far more reliable source is some wanker on the internet.

Yeah, how dare I have an opinion, and presume to share it. After all, I've not been to law school which is apparently how we separate the sheep from the goats as far as societal worthiness. I should just shut up and do as I'm told.

It's a figure of speech. You ever see a fox get into a henhouse? There's a whole lot of squawking and excitement to no real useful purpose.

Um. Two problems. First, I understand the figure of speech, but don't see how it has anything to do with the situation.

Second, you apparently don't understand either the figure or speech or what actually happens when a fox gets into a henhouse. The fox kills the chickens. Thus, one objects to the idea of a fox guarding the henhouse.


Also, your failure to answer my challenge regarding strict constructionism or originalism is noted.

Its too bad that the Justices most likely to leave the Court during Obama's tenure will be those already considered "liberal". He will probably not get an opportunity to change the composition of the Court.

her stepping down doesn't alter power.
if she had during bush administration it would be a different story.

Yeah, I'm a terrible person, hanging my head in shame. I should really have behaved with the same class and sympathy that people on the opposite side of the aisle from him showed when Jesse Helms died..oh, wait http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560003&highlight=Jesse+Helms

1. Your "they did it too" excuse works no better here than in the playground.

2. There were many that objected to the lack of class and sympathy shown in that thread.

3. You appear to endorse a double-standard:

Political differences aside, gloating over someone's death is a bit tasteless.

Its too bad that the Justices most likely to leave the Court during Obama's tenure will be those already considered "liberal". He will probably not get an opportunity to change the composition of the Court.

Of course I'd never wish ill on a justice, but it is true that the two most liberal justices, Souter and Ginsberg, are quite on in years.

But hey, who knows, maybe Scalia will leave a seat when Satan comes up to collect...

you apparently don't understand either the figure or speech or what actually happens when a fox gets into a henhouse. The fox kills the chickens. Thus, one objects to the idea of a fox guarding the henhouse.

Yes, but until the fox kills the chickens, there is also a good deal of squawking and excitement. Also, 'foxes guarding henhouses' is a different figure of speech, and one that I didn't actually use.

Also, your failure to answer my challenge regarding strict constructionism or originalism is noted.

How laughably self-important. Good thing you're just some random wanker on the internet. or that might actually mean something.

Yes, but until the fox kills the chickens, there is also a good deal of squawking and excitement. Also, 'foxes guarding henhouses' is a different figure of speech, and one that I didn't actually use.



How laughably self-important. Good thing you're just or that might actually mean something.

Translation: I cannot defend 'strict constructionalism'.


Figured.

Yes, but until the fox kills the chickens, there is also a good deal of squawking and excitement. Also, 'foxes guarding henhouses' is a different figure of speech, and one that I didn't actually use.

How laughably self-important. Good thing you're just or that might actually mean something.

1. It is not surprising that one who can't correctly use a simple figure of speech has problems interpreting the Constitution.

2. How dare I ask you to defend your assertions? What arrogance!!!

Its clear every time the supreme court is talked about that most conservatives havent read or dont understand the constitution. I look foward to them proving all my suspicions about their constitutional ineptitude right.

Obviously you haven't read or understand the Constitution.

Bet you're upset that they declared the 2nd Amendment an individual right.

Obviously you haven't read or understand the Constitution.

Bet you're upset that they declared the 2nd Amendment an individual right.

Ooh, trading senseless and baseless strawmen. How erudite of both of you!!!

Obviously you haven't read or understand the Constitution.

DK, when you read and understand your own sources, you can question my understanding of the constitution.


Bet you're upset that they declared the 2nd Amendment an individual right.

You bet wrong. I love how you feel totally qualified to tell me my views.

Ooh, trading senseless and baseless strawmen. How erudite of both of you!!!

I figured it wasn't worth arguing with KOL.

Ooh, trading senseless and baseless strawmen. How erudite of both of you!!!

I used to play an Erudite in Everquest.

What? *scurries away*

I used to play an Erudite in Everquest.

What? *scurries away*

they made great necromancers.

I figured it wasn't worth arguing with KOL.

I understand how youd get tired of losing.

Anyway, back to the topic...

Anyone think she'll resign?

they made great necromancers.

I started way back, when charisma was easy to come by but intelligence was not. So, I made my enchanter an Erudite and boosted his INT out the ass as much as possible for mana, then piled on charisma gear for my charming and mezzing and so forth.

I wished I had made a gnome later, though. :(

don't you understand Cat Tribes? If a supreme court justice, with decades of experience in the law, says something about the constitution that some random guy on the internet, who has never so much as been to law school, thinks, then that judge MUST be wrong.

Because, after all, why sould we trust JUDGES when it comes to the constitution? I think a far more reliable source is some wanker on the internet.
Speaking of wankers on the internet, which USSC justice said that it would be good if they were to study decisions by courts other than US courts -- or something to the effect of using the policy of other nations to decide cases in the U.S.?

I understand how youd get tired of losing.


Losing about what? Your strawman?

Speaking of wankers on the internet, which USSC justice said that it would be good if they were to study decisions by courts other than US courts -- or something to the effect of using the policy of other nations to decide cases in the U.S.?

Given that numerous SCOTUS opinions over decades (if not centuries) have sometimes looked to foreign laws as relevant to US law, there are any number of candidates throughout history.

Nonetheless, I suspect you are trying to imply something that was never said.

Losing about what? Your strawman?

Sure.


Anyway, Im willing to bet she'll resign. Pancreatic cancer is especially lethal. She should spend whats left of her life with her family.

Speaking of wankers on the internet, which USSC justice said that it would be good if they were to study decisions by courts other than US courts -- or something to the effect of using the policy of other nations to decide cases in the U.S.?

You mean, someone suggested it might be a good idea, when it comes to seeing how laws are interpreted and decided, to look to a wide spectrum of learned individuals who have interpreted similar (or in the cases of international treaties, often the same) law, to get a perspective broade than just american courts?

Those fucking bastards! How dare they try to make a fully formed opinion!

Sure.

Anyway, Im willing to bet she'll resign. Pancreatic cancer is especially lethal. She should spend whats left of her life with her family.

She might resign sooner than you think. I think the only reason she hasn't retired already is because she was waiting for a Democrat to be elected.

Ooh, trading senseless and baseless strawmen. How erudite of both of you!!!
You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Given that numerous SCOTUS opinions over decades (if not centuries) have sometimes looked to foreign laws as relevant to US law, there are any number of candidates throughout history.

Nonetheless, I suspect you are trying to imply something that was never said.

I believe he's speaking of Justice Stevens, who wrote the concurrent opinion in Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005) which held it unconstitutional to sentence a minor to death. The comments were made to the 7th Circuit Bar Association, regarding his concurrence. At this meeting, Stevens defended his citations to international law, stating that laws beyond our own forum can still provide guideance, but not controlling authority, on such things as civil rights. The laws specifically cited by Stevens were the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Stevens' rationale was that, when determining what our conception of basic civil rights is, perhaps we should not limit ourselves to merely our own perspective, and seek out more worldly ideas. Scalia, in dissent, apparently found it inappropriate that the court would dare to actually listen, or care, what non americans thought civil liberties were.

Given that numerous SCOTUS opinions over decades (if not centuries) have sometimes looked to foreign laws as relevant to US law, there are any number of candidates throughout history.

Nonetheless, I suspect you are trying to imply something that was never said.
That practice may well be wise when dealing with subjects that have the interest of the international community...
My thought was that Ginsberg was a very vocal proponent of the same.

You appear to endorse a double-standard:

No I'm not. I'm not gloating over someone's death. I also didn't imply that her having cancer was a good thing, that she deserved it, or that, in the event of her death, that I would celebrate. I merely noted a fact and then asked a question. I then branched out into commentary and opinion on a separate but related topic.

Scalia, in dissent, apparently found it inappropriate that the court would dare to actually listen, or care, what non americans thought civil liberties were.

As far as basic principles of government go, since our system is built on Greek and Roman and English common-law and usages, yeah it might not hurt to go back and occasionally revisit those sources. When it comes to current cases on American civil liberties, current non-American opinions should count for exactly as much as they do in our electoral processes.

well they caught it very early so she has a ...37% chance of making it to the 5 year mark (if its caught later its more like a 1% chance)

i hope she can beat it and stay on the bench for a few more years. if not, im sure the president has plenty of excellent candidates to choose from.

Oh, well, since Heinleinites seems to want it so much, I'll deliver it:

*Ahem*

*Reads text*

It's a pity that it's a liberal judge with pancreatic cancer. It would have been so much better if it were Scalia that had it and he died a slow and painful death. Look up to the audience and... Oh, wait.

*Looks up to the audience and giggles*

There, Heinleinites. Happy now? Go ahead and wank on my post for all it's worth, soiling your keyboard and your monitor, about how evil liberals are, all the while using a woman's serious disease to get precisely that reaction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/05/supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-surgery-pancreatic-cancer/

Given that pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly types of cancer, and one of the most arduous types to fight, and that she has already been treated for colon cancer in '99, I wonder if she might step down. If she doesn't, I wonder if she might be ever-so diplomatically leaned on to step down, so that Pres. B. Hussein Obama can nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

I don't think preasuring her to step down will nessissarily be needed if she's that sick. Besides, why would it matter to Obama either way? She's a left-wing Justice, isn't she?

Of course, Obama may want a younger replacement in before he leaves, but he's got four years minimum to worry about that, and two before the next Congressional election. He'd probably rather deal with the economic problems and Iraq (and getting his Cabinate in), without having to deal with yet another nomination battle right now. Later on, he might suggest that she step down, but she'll probably do so first. I doubt she'd want to risk dying while a GOP President was in and giving them control of the courts, besides the dificulty of doing the job while battling cancer.

Oh, and spelling his name B. Hussein Obama isn't sending the message you want. It doesn't make me think "oh my God he's Muslim (and black)." It just makes me think you're a troll.

Wouldn't that put the fox in among the chickens?

Where is the "wanker" smilie, damnit?:)

And just when you thought all the political excitement was over, and we could all step back and take a breath. For those who don't live in the U.S., or who have blocked the previous nomination processes from their minds, a quick primer:

Politics never ends. And nor should the media's coverage or the public's involvement.

And after all, the right isn't going to stop whinging just because Obama won? Are they?

Certain seasons or events have historically spawned their own lexicons which are unique to those events and used almost exclusively to describe them. Late in the college football season, some games have what are unfailingly called, "serious bowl implications." Likewise vice-presidential candidates must possess 'gravitas' and Super Bowls oddly acquire roman numerals. So too, does the Supreme Court nomination process require its own terminology.

There are a number of ordinary words and phrases that will be used ad nauseam. They will however take on some unfamiliar connotations in the course of being repeated in endless web-postings, editorials and what passes for debate in the world's greatest deliberative body.

This process begins with identifying senators with whom liberals can reach a 'consensus.' Anyone they would deem an 'acceptable' Republican they can 'work with' is, of course, either a 'moderate' or a 'maverick.' Anyone else is a 'partisan,' an 'extremist' or more simply put, unwilling to 'compromise.'

Yeah, that sounds about right to me.:)

I just want judges who will act on principle and defend the Constitution. Unfortunately, most right-wing polititians (at least of the Bush type) would probably reinterperate the Constitution along theocratic and pro-Executive power lines. I certainly hope these Republicans are among those who's positions are deemed "unacceptable." I doubt I'll be entirely happy with whoever Obama picks, but the man is presumably not going to pick someone who uses the Constitution as toilet paper.

And their's nothing wrong with saying they'll only work with moderate or maverik Republicans. Most of the rest follow an ideology that runs counter the Constitution and America's democratic and secular principles. Also, what's the point of trying to cooperate with them?

It sounds like you're preemptively blaming the Democrats for not cooperating with people who in all probabillity will not cooperate with any reasonable consessions the Democrats made (note the unanimous House Republican vote against the economic plan). This, in turn, suggests to me that your idea of an appropriate level of Democrat "cooperation" is to cave completely to the GOP's far right on all issues. Thanks, but we had enough of that during the first five years after 911.

'Mainstream' refers to a nominee who, in the event they possess the ability to pay their taxes, is to the political left of Barbara Boxer, whereas a 'radical' is someone who is to the political right of Barbara Boxer. Any nominee who has actually written an opinion that is 'out of the mainstream' will be referred to as 'flawed.'

While I am not familiar with Barbara Boxer, if you're intending to imply that the Democrats will pick a far-left nominee, I would point out first that left in the US is center or right in much of the modern world, and that in any case Obama has apparently reached out to the Republicans by having a somewhat conservative pastor speak at his innauguration and by keeping at least one member of the Bush cabinate, only to be thanked by a unanimous GOP vote against his economic plan. Frankly, he should grow some nuts and stop worrying about politics, and just appoint the people who he thinks are the best for the various jobs. If you or anyone else thinks those people are too far left, I don't really care.

'Out of the mainstream' also refers to those who are religious adherents, while those who have actually read, understood and follow the tenets of the U.S. Constitution are 'strict originalists' who would 'roll back rights.'

Right, because liberal politics excludes "religious adherents.":rolleyes: Nevermind that every President gets sworn in on a Bible, that Obama spent months alternately being attacked for his Christian pastor or for being a Muslim, and that I doubt you'd find a single openly atheist Senator.

Oh wait, let me guess; they're not "True Believers.":rolleyes: Or do you just ignor these facts and pretend, like so many other pathetic right-wingers, that the Evil Liberal Atheist Eleit controls the country and is persecuting Christianity?

Either way, it looks like you've passed Fundi Bullshit 101 with flying colours.

In the event that Justice Ginsburg does step down, watch for these and other appellations coming soon to a cable 'news' network near you.

It'll be no more annoying than reading this post.

Also, I would like to add that my thoughts and prayers are with Justice Ginsburg, that I wish her the best, and that I find it tragic to think that her personal illness may become embroiled as a tool in partisan politics.

Of course I'd never wish ill on a justice, but it is true that the two most liberal justices, Souter and Ginsberg, are quite on in years.

But hey, who knows, maybe Scalia will leave a seat when Satan comes up to collect...

Don't you mean four seats?

As far as basic principles of government go, since our system is built on Greek and Roman and English common-law and usages, yeah it might not hurt to go back and occasionally revisit those sources. When it comes to current cases on American civil liberties, current non-American opinions should count for exactly as much as they do in our electoral processes.

Why?

EDIT: "A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind": The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice- Supreme Court of the United States, April 1, 2005 (http://www.asil.org/events/AM05/ginsburg050401.html)

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Who?

well they caught it very early so she has a ...37% chance of making it to the 5 year mark (if its caught later its more like a 1% chance)

i hope she can beat it and stay on the bench for a few more years. if not, im sure the president has plenty of excellent candidates to choose from.

Considering her age; doesn't that go down?

It'll be no more annoying than reading this post.

Wah wah wah. Nobody twisted your arm, made you click on the link and then taped your eyelids open Clockwork Orange style and forced you to read it. You don't like it, treat it like I treat Stephen Colbert, and ignore it.

Why?

For the same reason people in Switzerland aren't holding their breath waiting for US input in their court cases. A)In the end, it's really none of our business, and B)the people who actually live there and have a stake in the process are much better judges than I am.

For the same reason people in Switzerland aren't holding their breath waiting for my opinions of their politics.

Well, in fairness, it's not like anyone here is either.

Wah wah wah. Nobody twisted your arm, made you click on the link and then taped your eyelids open Clockwork Orange style and forced you to read it. You don't like it, treat it like I treat Stephen Colbert, and ignore it.

Not much of a rebuttal.:rolleyes:

Besides, some things are too stupid to ignore.

Oh, and spelling his name B. Hussein Obama isn't sending the message you want. It doesn't make me think "oh my God he's Muslim (and black)." It just makes me think you're a troll.

Nope, not a troll. I live next to a bridge, not under it. Well, it's not really a 'bridge', so much as it is 'some planks of wood I nailed together and put there so I could walk across the creek without getting my boots wet.' As for the 'Hussein', the left spent eight years calling GWB 'Shrub' and 'Bushie', that is when they weren't calling him 'Hitler', so I don't really think your average lefty is in a position to be pissy.

Well, in fairness, it's not like anyone here is either.

Har de har. You come up with that all by yourself? It's a good thing you're just some 'random wanker on the Internet' or I might be hurt.

Har de har. You come up with that all by yourself? It's a good thing you're just some 'random wanker on the Internet' or I might be hurt.

For someone who doesn't care, you sure do spend an awful amount of time telling everyone how much you don't care.

What's the line? Methinks the lady doth protest too much?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much?The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

That's it.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

That's it.

I just got schooled in Hamlet by a teenager.

Good for you.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

That's it.

Yuppers. People always seem to put the "methinks" at the wrong end for some reason. :)

I just got schooled in Hamlet by a teenager.

Good for you.My English teacher is a slave driver. If you don't read Shakespeare during your free time, you're guaranteed to fail her class. (And I really, really don't like Shakespeare.)

Yuppers. People always seem to put the "methinks" at the wrong end for some reason. :)Somebody too lazy to look up the quote popularized the it, I suppose.

(And I really, really don't like Shakespeare.)


But he likes you! :(

But he likes you! :(Apparently, all his writing seems to make its way into my house! :(

Its too bad that the Justices most likely to leave the Court during Obama's tenure will be those already considered "liberal". He will probably not get an opportunity to change the composition of the Court.

Well yes and no. True, it's likely that Obama will have to find replacements for just the most liberal judges on the Supreme court (not just Ginsberg but also Souter who's 89 this April!). However, if he can find two judges of (comparatively) young age (mid-50s, say), He's effectively ensuring a strong liberal voice on the Court for decades to come.

Shakespeare is awesome. He indirectly named my doggie. *nod*

Shakespeare is awesome. He indirectly named my doggie. *nod*Dead almost 400 years, and still influencing the world subtly. He certainly achieved the "be remembered" part about immortality.

Wouldn't that put the fox in among the chickens?
The actual term is, "put the cat among the pigeons"
Really. If you're going to attempt to troll, at least have the decency not to mangle your idioms.
Mangled idioms are as pointless as changing leopards mid-stream.

Shakespeare is awesome. He indirectly named my doggie. *nod*

You named your dog "Which is the lady I must seize upon?"

You named your dog "Which is the lady I must seize upon?"

Heh, no, that's a bit long. The vet does seem to find Rosencrantz a similarly baffling name, though. :p

(Technically, she's named for Stoppard's version of the character, but the actual name is still from Shakespeare.)

The actual term is, "put the cat among the pigeons" Really. If you're going to attempt to troll, at least have the decency not to mangle your idioms.

Sigh. "Chrysler guru puts fox among the chickens with green criticism"
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070111/ai_n17111782)

"Peretz himself put the fox among the chickens by promising to eliminate unemployment within two years."
(http://www.isracast.com/transcripts/141105a_trans.htm)

Your version would seem to be the urban equivalent. Not everybody lives in the city. Some of us have chickens, not pigeons. Remember kiddies, your corner of the world isn't the only corner there is. Are we done with this now?

What's the line? Methinks the lady doth protest too much?

It's a good thing 'law school attendance' was already established as the barometer of social worthiness and not 'Shakespeare quoting' or you'd be just as SOL as I apparently am.