I haven't the time or energy to make full-blown posts out of all these items, so tonight I'm just going to clear the decks and get them off my "to-blog-about" list, along with some other various links from around the intertubes.

1. Obviously, the return of Elizabeth Edwards's cancer is a terrible story. She seems like a really nice and genuine person, and I wish her well. Two thoughts. First, this isn't a political story, but it will have political consequences. I think it makes it more likely that John Edwards will be the vice-presidential candidate in 2008 than the presidential candidate. Just a speculation, though. And second, one thing I thought watching last week's press conference was how well John Edwards talks about this kind of thing. I know that cancer patients and their families become quite familiar with obscure and complex medical terminology, and I'm sure that's part of it. But his ability to succinctly, coherently, and movingly put it all in layman's terms gave me a little glimpse at how good he must have been in front of a jury, explaining a plaintiff's injuries.

2. Prof. Horwitz at PrawfsBlawg had an interesting post last week about a law clerk to a federal judge trying a big Katrina-related insurance case. The clerk gave an anonymous statement to a newspaper reporter about the judge's thinking in the case. I was stunned by that. To give the clerk the benefit of the doubt, I think there's an interpretation here that's not too bad. The parties are trying to work things out via state regulatory agencies, and the federal suit is on hold. The clerk's statement was along the lines of, "The judge is fine if these cases get resolved some other way, but he's willing to deal with it in court if necessary." That construction is mostly innocuous; I see it as not much more controversial than saying, "The judge is fine if the parties mediate a settlement, but if not, he'll move forward with the case." Still, it seems a bit beyond what a clerk should tell a reporter, because it's capable of a construction that sounds more like the judge voicing an opinion of how the case should proceed. I was really surprised a clerk would do this, and have to assume the judge okayed it. Otherwise, that clerk is, at best, pretty reckless.

3. Howard links to this fun story about the Coke vs. Coke Zero litigation commercials. Say what you will about unscrupulous lawyers willing to bring the most worthless case, the lawyers consulted in these videos basically told these guys to get lost within two minutes. (Sure, maybe there was some editing involved, and I'm sure it helped that the lawyers knew the "clients" were with the company, but still, at least none we've seen so far actually thought the case had merit.)

4. Via The Stranger's blog, a quiz asking whether a given sentence is from the works of William Faulkner or a computer translation of a passage in German. I've never gotten into Faulker. He just doesn't do anything for me, and I can't get more than a couple of pages into any of his books. There was a time, years ago, when I thought that made me less Southern. But then I grew up.

5. Some recent reading I don't have the desire to write full reviews for: Chuck Klosterman IV by Chuck Klosterman (I liked it a lot; essential for any Klosterman fan); War Reporting for Cowards by Chris Ayres (very enjoyable); Speak Softly, She Can Hear by Pam Lewis (as good as Patricia Highsmith -- high praise from me); The Poet by Michael Connelly (I wanted to read a Connelly but didn't want to get into the Harry Bosch series; not bad as far as thrillers go, but feels a bit dated by now); Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos (I'm not a math whiz, but some of this seemed rudimentary even for me; still, a quick read, mostly well written, and has some good reminders to help make numbers less perplexing).

6. I enjoyed the first episode of the tv version of "This American Life" on Showtime. If you're curious but don't have Showtime, check out the first episode for free here. (Link via The Slog.) As most reviews have said, the show translates surprisingly well to television. Recommended.

7. Finally, a really awful story you've probably heard by now. The kid who dressed up as the UNC ram mascot Rameses, a fellow named Jason Ray, died after being hit by a car while he was in New Jersey for North Carolina's basketball games. An emailer said in Bill Simmons's latest post, "I don't just want him to be a 'UNC mascot dies' blurb on ESPN.com." This story gives a lot more detail on Jason Ray's life. He sounds like a great guy who touched the lives of everyone who knew him. He packed a lot of living into 21 years. Check out the picture in that story -- he looks like the happiest guy you'll ever meet. His gift for touching the lives of others goes on: his family donated his organs. (Donate your organs, folks!) My condolences to Jason Ray's family and friends.

Howard Bashman links to a National Law Journal essay by Gregory J. Wallace criticizing the DC Circuit for citing Dred Scott in the big gun rights case a few weeks ago. I can see not wanting to cite Dred Scott as a matter of course, but it's an important case, and noting its existence doesn't revive it as good law. It would be one thing to cite it for the scope of Fifth Amendment property rights, but I don't see a big problem quoting its dicta about the scope of the Second Amendment right. First, the court was careful to disavow any broader reliance on the case. And second, there just aren't a lot of Supreme Court cases discussing the Second Amendment; beggars can't be choosers.

And imagine the counterexample. What if Dred Scott was good for the collective rights argument? What if it listed a bunch of individual rights protected in the constitution but omitted the right to bear arms? If that had been the case, and the court declined to cite Dred Scott out of sensitivity, wouldn't that look dishonest? Wouldn't gun control advocates accuse the court of manipulating the precedents? I think it should work the same the other way. There's a mention of the Second Amendment in this otherwise bad case, but it's clearly dicta and wasn't the reason for the outcome, and in the interest of completeness it's fine to cite it.

When I was in law school, I was reading something about the master-servant relationship in agency law, and noticed a citation to an 1850s case from one of the Confederate states. Out of curiosity, I looked it up. Sure enough, it arose from a master-slave relationship. As I recall, it had to do with who's liable when the master lends his slaves to another and the slave commits a tort. It read like a defective product case. It was bizarre. I checked, and the state court didn't cite it often, but there were cites as late as the 1950s for the agency principles involved, without mentioning the precise facts. But that isn't what the DC Circuit did at all. It wasn't glossing over or defending Dred Scott. The case exists, and it is an important window into pre-14th Amendment constitutional theory, and the DC Circuit cited it for what it was worth. We shouldn't airbrush Dred Scott out of the U.S. Reports.