text:
Lopez-Torres, Justice Scalia, and the Situation of Elections
Posted by Goutam Jois on January 18, 2008
(Full disclosure: in 2006, I was a summer associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, which has been involved in some of the amicus briefing in support of the plaintiffs in this case. In 2008-09, I will clerk for Judge Chester J. Straub of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, who authored the now-reversed Second Circuit opinion affirming the preliminary injunction.)
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided New York Board of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, a case involving the system of selecting New York trial court judges. For over eight decades, Supreme Court (i.e., trial court) judges in New York have been chosen by election. The elections were explicitly partisan: candidates would be nominated by a political party's elected delegates at a nominating convention, and each party's nominee would stand in the general election.Candidates not affiliated with a party (as the term is defined in the statutes) could, assuming they meet some basic qualifications, run as independents. All in all, the system seems fairly reasonable. Or maybe it's only reasonable in theory. According to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, which litigated the case, the situation is much different in practice:
In practice, however, New York Supreme Court judges are selected through a de facto appointment system, which is largely controlled by county leaders of the two major political parties. Onerous structural obstacles designed to ensure that county leaders– not voters– select Supreme Court judges have prevented Lopez Torres and other highly qualified judges from becoming justices on the New York Supreme Court. The process thus silences rank-and-file party members and voters, and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.
In a 77-page opinion, Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York agreed. In early 2006, he issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the State of New York from enforcing its Supreme Court election laws as currently in force. Judge Gleeson wrote that the elections were illusory; the party leaders exerted so much control over the process that the state had "effectively transferr[ed] the power to choose to major party leaders." 411 F. Supp. 2d at 254. Judge Gleeson held that "[a] State may not choose to have judicial elections and then stifle the electoral process . . . , by creating electoral practices that effectively keep candidates out of contention entirely . . . ." Id. As a remedy, Judge Gleeson ordered the state to implement a direct primary election system, as is done in New York for other trial courts.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower-court decision for substantially the same reasons. Judge Straub wrote:
All of the evidence presented, and accepted by the District Court, reduces to this bottom line: through a Byzantine and onerous network of nominating phase regulations employed in areas of one-party rule, New York has transformed a de jure election into a de facto appointment. "[I]n every practical sense," these regulations preclude all but candidates favored by party leadership "from seeking the nomination of their chosen party, no matter how qualified they might be, and no matter how broad or enthusiastic their popular support." 462 F.3d at 200-01.
The Supreme Court reversed. Writing for an eight-member majority, Justice Scalia asserted that the political parties' dominance of the election process posed no constitutional problems. In so doing, Justice Scalia echoed some classic dispositionist themes — themes that, as with most dispositionist narratives, placed an undue emphasis of rational choice while slighting situational factors. For example, Justice Scalia conceded that the candidates favored by the political parties might win election. "But this says nothing more than that the party leadership has more widespread support than a candidate not supported by the leadership." Slip Op. at 8. In other words, the voters are merely expressing a preference; the leadership's candidate must win because he appeals to more voters' preferences. The plaintiffs in Lopez-Torres also complained that the general elections for judges were not competitive: Democratic or Republican party leaders would select the nominee, and since most districts were dominated by one party, the party's nominee would easily win. Justice Scalia finds no problem with this outcome either. "The reason one-party rule is entrenched may be (and usually is) that voters approve of the positions and candidates that the party regularly puts forward. It is no function of the First Amendment to require revision of those positions or candidates." Slip. Op. at 11.
Again, the candidate must be winning because the voters' preferences align with his views.
What Justice Scalia fails to note is that there are strong psychological factors that weigh in favor of one-party rule. A variety of phenomena, including status quo bias, loss aversion, and the endowment effect — or even just plain old inertia — combine to make voters highly unlikely to unseat an incumbent or to go against the way things have always been. Finally, we humans tend to exhibit the system justification motive in our reasoning — a tendency to view existing social, political, and economic arrangements as fair.
Because of these cognitive biases, it is also highly unlikely that voters, individually or collectively, would express a "rational" "preference" for a given existing arrangement if squarely presented with that possibility. Under the New York system of nominating conventions, however, it is impossible to know.
Unlike the lower courts' opinions, Justice Scalia's analysis is blind to the situational factors that bear heavily on the outcome of the nominating conventions. New York's state law clearly calls for these judgeships to be filled by election; yet, as Judge Straub wrote, the system had morphed into one where party leaders essentially appoint nominees. But how can this be the case if there is a competitive election among the potential nominees? Again, social psychology offers some insight into this question.
First, there is the well-known framing effect. Political endorsements surely matter; that is one reason party leaders in this case (and others, in other cases) make them in the first place. By framing the choices in terms of the "party's slate" and "all others," the party leaders exert strong influence over who the delegates ultimately vote for. This phenomenon is well known, and it is the same reason, for example, that boards of directors recommend to their shareholders how they should vote, or that Randy, Paula, and Simon nudge the audience/voters on American Idol. If we as voters were really "rational actors" expressing their "preferences," then endorsements from party leaders or Simon Cowell should be irrelevant. We are not, and so such endorsements matter a great deal.
Indeed, as other posts on this blog have discussed some of the unseen situational effects on elections. For example, a candidate's position on a ballot can affect the vote totals. Similarly, the presence of an irrelevant third candidate, who actually does not appeal to the stated preferences of a given voter, might actually change his vote. Across a variety of contexts, the data show ways that people's choices are shaped by the way they are presented.
The theme running through Justice Scalia's opinion is one of choice and preferences, that is, the rhetoric of naïve psychology that underlies most market-based arguments. And Justice Scalia draws on the market analogy as well: "The First Amendment creates an open marketplace where ideas, most especially political ideas, may compete without government interference. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). It does not call on the federal courts to manage the market by preventing too many buyers from settling upon a single product." Slip Op. at 11. Yet the tension between this passage and others is notable. Justice Scalia repeatedly makes reference to the various limits that the court has imposed on states' abilities to conduct elections. See, e.g., id. at 5-7 (noting that a political party's racially discrimination can become state action, that a state has a legitimate interest in prescribing the fairness of a nominating process, that excluding non-party-members from a partisan primary is permissible, and that certain petitioning requirements are constitutional). Thus, even under Justice Scalia's analysis, the question is not one of "government interference" versus "no interference." Whether in markets or in elections, "interference" of some kind, as I have argued elsewhere, is inevitable. The more interesting questions revolve around the types of interference their extent. By deferring to the straw men of "government interference" and voters' "preferences," Justice Scalia thus avoids the more difficult question of how (if at all) to justify certain types of interference but not others.
Justice Scalia is careful to note, however, that the Supreme Court is by no means requiring New York to stick with the status quo: "If it wishes to return to the primary system that it discarded in 1921, it is free to do so." Slip Op. at 12. Of course, status quo bias, the endowment effect, &c. make it similarly unlikely that the legislature will radically break from its past practice. Elsewhere, Situationist co-founder Jon Hanson and situationist contributor David Yosifon referred to us humans as "cognitive misers." And just as humans manage their scare cognitive resources with decisional short-cuts, so too do legislatures manage their very scarce resources with similar shortcuts. Justice Scalia's comment that the legislature is free to revise its system therefore rings somewhat hollow.
Finally, it is worth noting the important role that processes and procedures play in Justice Scalia's analysis. Margarita Lopez-Torres, a judicial candidate who enjoyed significant popular support, was essentially blacklisted from the local Democratic Party because she refused to hire an under-qualified man as her law secretary. This refusal was fatal to her aspirations to become a Supreme Court Justice because the recommended candidate had "'work[ed] hard for the Democratic Party's political clubs to get candidates elected' and the law secretary 'job is the way to reward [him].'" 462 F.3d 179. Justice Scalia's dismisses Lopez-Torres, and people like her, as just a group of people who were crying sour grapes after losing an election. "Here respondents complain not of the state law, but of the voters' (and their elected delegates') preference for the choices of the party leadership." Slip Op. at 8. The message is clear: an election procedure is in place, and it seems reasonably fair (after all, "No New York law compels election of the leadership's slate—or, for that matter, compels the delegates elected on the leadership's slate to vote the way the leadership desires." Id.). Thus, absent a 'gun to the head' or some statutory equivalent, there is no constitutional violation. As Situationist contributor Tom Tyler has pointed out, the perceived legitimacy of a given procedure can induce people to accept outcomes they would otherwise find unjust. Justice Scalia's appeal to the ostensible fairness of the election procedures appears to be an attempt to generate just that kind of acceptance.
The Lopez-Torres case illustrates some of the Constitutional issues that are implicated by New York's method for selecting Supreme Court justice. However, the fundamental questions raised run much deeper. Unfortunately, Justice Scalia's analysis in Lopez-Torres suggests that any electoral disputes will be decided with a view to heavily dispositionist theories of human behavior, to the near-exclusion of things like framing, context, and other situational factors. If we are truly committed to democratic politics, then we would do well to re-examine our fundamental (dispositionist) assumptions about ourselves — and to base our analysis of constitutional claims on the most realistic model of the human actor that we have available to us. posts have discussed the insights social psychology can give us into elections in general and this year's presidential election in particular.
6 Responses to "Lopez-Torres, Justice Scalia, and the Situation of Elections"
January 22, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Why should endorsements from party leaders be irrelevant? I can think of two reasons people should pay attention. 1) Voters may respect the party leaders and defer to their better informed opinion. 2) Voters value the effectiveness of candidates, and endorsements signal that the candidate can work well with others who have power in the system.
January 24, 2008 at 12:02 am
[…] Lopez-Torres, Justice Scalia, and the Situation of Elections […]
February 4, 2008 at 2:47 am
"Of course, status quo bias, the endowment effect, &c. make it similarly unlikely that the legislature will radically break from its past practice." Based upon your view, the State never would have adopted primaries in 1911. Nor would the State of New York have changed back to conventions after using primaries for conventions. The fact is, political party leaders' views matter in political parties and there is nothing wrong with that. The Brennan Center's view is that Lopez Torres should have been able to take her case to the voters, but ignore the fact that she ran in the general election in 2003 and lost. Of course, you have an excuse for that too. But that excuse ignores the fact that candidates from another political party holding NYC's (an alleged one-party town) position of mayor for the past 15 years.
P.S. the unqualified lawyer that Lopez Torres refused to hire was in the top 10% of his law school class at Brooklyn Law School and a member of that school's law review. He had already served as a law clerk to a New York State Supreme Court Justice. Lopez Torres hired an allegedly more qualified person to be her law clerk. This person is a friend of hers from a legal services organization. There is also a name for hiring a friend for a job….
March 24, 2008 at 5:30 pm
[…] or, specifically, the 2008 presidential election, see "On Being a Mindful Voter," "Lopez-Torres, Justice Scalia, and the Situation of Elections," "Heart Brain or Wallet?" "Your Brain on Politics," "Al Gore – The Situationist" and […]
June 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm
[…] election, see "Implicit Associations in the 2008 Presidential Election," "Lopez-Torres, Justice Scalia, and the Situation of Elections," "Heart Brain or Wallet?" "Your Brain on Politics," "Al Gore – The Situationist" […]
September 29, 2010 at 9:50 am
Just to be clear, the person in question was me, and I was in the top 5% of my law school class. However, I was a not a member of the Law Review.
More to the point, a relationship between a Judge and her law clerk is an extremely intitmate one, and the Judge was best advised to hire someone she was comfortable with. I did not ask anyone to pressure her, and was mortified to learn, over a decade later, what had transpired.


text:
Monday, December 12, 2011
Snuggie Texts
Hey Amanda! This is Jane. I was thinking for Beth's wedding gift we could go halfsies on one of those blocks of wood that says words like faith and hope that they could put on a mantle or hang on the wall. What do you think?
Hmmm . . . I saw couples snuggies at K-Mart the other day on sale for 9.99 and I think this is probably more of what she's looking for. It's more practical.
Lol! That's what I got them for their birthdays! But seriously, what do you think about the wood block idea?
Ok . . . I know for a fact you didn't get them snuggies for their birthdays because I talked to Beth recently and asked her which kind she would want if she got one as a wedding gift and she didn't say anything about already having one . . .
Oh Amanda, I was just joking. Sorry. :( Tell me more about your snuggie idea?
I'm confused . . . what was the joke?
Oh, a lot of people joke about snuggies. But I know a lot of people like them and I just thought maybe you were joking. I don't know you very well, obviously, so I don't know your sense of humor.
Well obviously I don't think we should get them leopard print. I was thinking the classy kitten snuggies with their names embroidered onto them and a phrase like "1+1=furrrever."
1+1=furrever? Do you mean 2+2?
2? Are they each 2 people? Why would it be 2+2?
1+1 equals 2, not 4. So the number "furrrever" doesn't really make sense with 1+1. Also, I don't think Beth likes cat stuff . . .
Furrrever isn't a number . . . And Beth doesn't like cats but I'm pretty sure she likes cat stuff. I get her t-shirts with kittens on them for every birthday and she always says she loves them and that she wears them on vacations and stuff.
I bet she likes them just fine. I guess I just assumed she didn't like cat stuff since she doesn't like cats . . . But maybe she would like them. Or we could think of other options . . .
I can tell you don't like the snuggie idea so let's just bag it.
I'm willing to consider it of course! But, are you at all interested in my block word idea? We could get those really cute ones that are painted different colors and just have a whole bunch they could put around their house.
Here, let me text you a picture of my snuggie so you can get a better idea.
Unknown: (2 hours later)
Honestly Amanda, I'm not crazy about the snuggie idea. If you want to do that, that's cool but I'll probably just do my own thing. Is that ok?
Is it because of the picture? Obviously the Venetian mask and tea kettle wouldn't be part of the gift. I was just trying to show a few different uses. I can send other pictures if you want to see more.
No, that's ok. I think it looks really comfie. So you don't like the block words idea?
You can go to football games in them, do grocery shopping, wear them around when all of your clothes are wet, read books, etc.
Yeah, they seem really cool. But she probably wouldn't do that kind of stuff in one . . .
Well obviously she would have to tie it in the back so it wouldn't fall off. Especially if she didn't wear any clothes under it.
Alright. So you aren't interested in my block word idea?
It's not that I don't like it. It's just that, when I was a kid my grandma used to always give me books for Christmas and I was always like, "thanks grandma. Now I have to read to enjoy your gift." You get me? Plus who has time for that?
But you understand the blocks are just one word. Like it would just be a block that says "Faith" or something.
Oooooohhhhhh. So like a whole bunch of them that you move around to make funny sentences like word magnets on fridges that say stuff like, "I don't want no bunny banana frog ok no way!"
? No. Like, it's just the one word and you put it on a shelf or something.
So we would have to get them a shelf too?
No . . . Ok, so you're not crazy about my idea. Do you have any others, other than the snuggie idea?
What about garden gnomes?
Well they don't have a yard . . .
Oh. What about a couple of chickens! Ok, hear me out on this. When I was a kid my parents had a chicken coop and we called one of the chickens the Queen of Colors because she was really colorful but one day her legs got stuck in my sister's hair so they had to cut the chicken out.
I don't think they would appreciate live animals.
You're missing the point! The Queen of Colors got stuck in her hair! You have no idea what that put her through. Everyone called her "chicken head" until she lost her eye in a rubber band fight with her sponsor and they all started calling her "one-eyed-Wendy." But she's so much stronger for it.
I'll just do my own thing and you can do whatever you want. Ok?
Unknown: (Many hours later)
Who is this?
And why did you keep texting me when you knew I had the wrong number?
~It Just Gets Stranger
273 comments:
LOL!!!! Now, this is funny!ReplyDeleteReplies
- AnonymousOctober 15, 2012 at 3:33 PM
I am seriously CRYING from laughing so hard!!!Delete
- AnonymousOctober 15, 2012 at 7:47 PM
Omg - me too! Only on the internet can u find such amusement from total strangers! Thanks for the laugh!Delete
- AnonymousOctober 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Too halarious!!! Thanks for the Tuesday morning laugh!!Delete
- AnonymousOctober 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM
i died laughing here!Delete
- AnonymousOctober 17, 2012 at 2:02 AM
Oh my holy hannah!!!! I have laughed so hard I am crying!!! I am wiping tears, laughing, gasping for air from the coughing fit from laughing SOOOOOOO hard, laughing some more, reaching for my inhaler due to the mini asthma attack from laughing so hard, taking a few puffs and laughing some more. OH WOW!!! That is HY-STER-I-CAL!!!!!Delete
- AnonymousOctober 25, 2012 at 2:09 PM
this is hysterical!!!! can't make this up.Delete
- AnonymousOctober 31, 2012 at 2:37 PM
LMAO! highlight of a rainny day, THX!Delete
- AnonymousNovember 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM
- AnonymousNovember 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM
"So ur telling me we have to buy them a shelf too".. hahaha this is greatDelete
- AnonymousNovember 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM
hahahaha this is good!Delete
- AnonymousNovember 16, 2012 at 8:18 PM
tears running down my face as i wheeze with asthma.Delete
- AnonymousNovember 18, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Thank you, thank you..... I'm choking up from laughing so hard!Delete
- AnonymousNovember 19, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Lmao!!!! I've always wanted to do this! Laughing my lady balls off! Thank you pinterest for bringing me here! hahahahaDelete
- AnonymousNovember 20, 2012 at 8:07 AM
Fell out of my chair reading this.Delete
The funniest thing I have seen...you have become my hero for the rest of the year lolDelete
thanks for the laugh. that was super funny!ReplyDelete
Tyler and I were dying reading this!! Like, really, we almost died. We both have coughs, so every time we laugh, we go into coughing fits. Totally worth it!ReplyDelete
Soooo funny! I love it!ReplyDelete
Poor girl. You've scarred her for life! But it was hilarious none the less :-). Can't stop laughing, actually. It was just what the doctor ordered today as well. Wonder if she'll take those texts to her lawyer for review?ReplyDelete
BTW, those word blocks are like $6.00 or something like that. They're all on sale right now at Hobby Lobby. Just bought one for a FOR REAL gift the other day. I have to confess, I'm more than a little concerned about the halvsies thing, especially since she doesn't know the person real well that she's suggesting this arrangement with. One should really check out their business partners a little more carefully...and they should probably check out the price tag of said items first, too.
Thank you Eli. Now I'm praying someone accidentally texts me!ReplyDelete
Oh...my!! Sorry, I feel somewhat strange leaving a comment, since I don't actually know you, but apparently you like talking to those you don't know, so...I really appreciated reading this conversation. I just received this link on facebook, and I'm so glad I followed it! Thanks for sharing the awesomeness.ReplyDelete
That's horrible!! and ..insanely funny at the same time.ReplyDelete
You are a genius.ReplyDelete
I am seriously dying over here. First, how did she not know you were joking with her?? Second, why is she texting someone she doesn't know to go "halfsies" on a gift?? Third, can you please get her to send you the actual Amanda-Jane text exchange regarding the wedding present halfsies idea?!ReplyDelete
Eli.....who would have thunk you were going to be a "texter prankster" aka lawyer? Your mom is so proud. :)ReplyDelete
i wasn't even laughing...i was snorting while reading this. nice.ReplyDelete
That's awesome. You're a great snuggie modelReplyDelete
Eli, you are my hero.ReplyDelete
The best part (and probably the most overlooked) is that Eli actually had a snuggie on hand to model for the pictures at that precise moment in time. (Nevermind the tea kettle and mask.)ReplyDelete
lol...wow she was trying really hard not to hurt your feelings...I'm very impressed by her patience!ReplyDelete
...and I loved your comment that word blocks are annoying because you have to read them to enjoy them...this was awesome.
(btw, mary beth referred me to this--your blog is awesome.)
Thanks for the smile! My brother would so do this too!ReplyDelete
That was so funny!! Thanks for the giggles :)ReplyDelete
Saw this on FB. I was crying because I was laughing so hard. Thanks!ReplyDelete
Ok, I havent read something that funny in a long time. Well done! I'm so impressed that you kept her going for so long. Very well done!ReplyDelete
Now to complete this story you need to ask her on a date and eventually marry Jane in a year. Then she can torture you about this forever.ReplyDelete
I came across this blog randomly today and after laughing my ever-loving head off, I promptly forwarded it to all of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances (in that order).ReplyDelete
I don't know how to say this, but I'm a little infatuated with you after reading your genius. At the risk of sounding like a total internet weirdo, if you are currently unattached I would love to put in my application (seriously- email me). If, however, you ARE attached I will just continue to laugh at your hilarity.
Eli, i never knew you were so crazy! I'm assuming law school made you this way. Haha you are like Ted L. Nancy (letters from nut). Haha this seriously cracked me up.ReplyDelete
So sad for that person!ReplyDelete
My roommate gave me this link and told me it would make my day. You did not disappoint, I was laughing so hard I started crying. Thank you ever so much for posting this!ReplyDelete
You are hilarious. Another FB referral and so glad I found this!! Now it's pinned so I can read it from time to time and get a good chuckle! Thanks!!!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM
That was the funniest freakin' thing I have ever read. Love it.ReplyDelete
That was the funniest thing I've read all year! My husband and I were crying from laughing so hard! Thanks!ReplyDelete
Wow Eli--with all your readers you could start putting up ads and getting paid to blog...too bad you spent three years going to law school when you could be a professional comedic blogger!!ReplyDelete
It's been too long--we need to meet up somewhere sometime!
Dude, one of my friends posted this link on facebook, and I am now a follower of your blog. HILARIOUS! -Have you ever read the book "Letters From a Nut" by Ted L. Nancy? Wow, you and Ted must be kindred spirits...ReplyDelete
This blog may be the most entertaining thing I have ever read. Bless you.ReplyDelete
oh my gosh, I think I'm in love....ReplyDelete
Just so everyone knows.....Eli's Mom and Dad (us) gave Eli (and his sister Krishelle) their first snuggies for Christmas as a joke. We all had a great laugh as they modeled them for us. Who knew that someday that very snuggy would make him famous! We are a proud mama and papa.ReplyDelete
Okay, so I don't even know you, but a couple of my Facebook friends posted a link to this post, so I figured that I'd read it. Totally glad that I did! That completely made my day. Thanks!ReplyDelete
Thanks for the laugh, you are a freakin' genius! :)ReplyDelete
Eli, you had us laughing till we cried with this post. Thanks for making our day! Hope you are well.ReplyDelete
Okay, I don't even know you, but someone had posted this on their facebook so I decided to take a look at it. My husband and I just about died laughing!! THAT IS SO FUNNY! ha ha ha ha!!ReplyDelete
A friend posted a link to your blog on Facebook today, and I am so amused! I wish I could accidentally text you, just to get such a wonderful dialogue going. Still need a roommate? ;)ReplyDelete
I think the best part is the fact that you have a snuggie.ReplyDelete
If you're not married yet... I'm single ;)ReplyDelete
I read this outloud for my co-workers today. I was crying by the end of it! Thanks for entertaining the workplace today!ReplyDelete
Seriously, this is the funniest thing ever! This is Kim's sister by the way...you totally crack me up!ReplyDelete
I followed a FB link...I think this is the new internet sensation! I want to do this...I hope some random number texts me soon!ReplyDelete
hahahahahahahahaha. I found this from my friend on facebook. I am still dying.ReplyDelete
So funny! Must have been a nice break from finals.ReplyDelete
I would have LOVED to get a garden gnome as a gift! In fact, I have a small one in my kitchen that needs a friend.ReplyDelete
On another note, why didn't she notice the man-hands in the first picture and realize that she probably wasn't texting someone named Amanda???? After all, female man-hands only exist in Seinfeld episodes.....
- AnonymousDecember 14, 2011 at 8:12 PM
Found this through Twitter...though I don't normally start conversations with people I don't know, I'm definitely making an exception here. Thanks for the most hilarious story I've read in a long time!ReplyDelete
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! I read this to my daughter and we were laughing so hard we were crying!! I absolutely loved it!!ReplyDelete
This was great, thanks for sharing!ReplyDelete
I officially love you. xD You're much too awesome to not be a writer - you should consider a change in your career choice.ReplyDelete
I don't know you either, but I have to say that's the best I've read in a while! You are amazing. +follow. You seem like the type to enjoy my friend's blog: kidscryingatdisneyland.comReplyDelete
this is hilarious!! I can't believe you had them going for so long! also, i loved the pic with the mask, too funny!ReplyDelete
I laughed so hard I cried. Then I missed parts because my tears blurred my vision, so I had to go back and read a second time.ReplyDelete
I sure hope Jane appreciates the thought that went into making her night full of smiles.
New RSS subscriber here.
Since you obviously now know that this is a facebook sensation, I don't feel creepy commenting. VERY well done. Also, I meandered through "The Lost Journal Series" and LOVED it! I'd pay good money if I could find my Wishbone diary (complete with lock & key) from 10 years old.ReplyDelete
Add me to the singles list. But seriously...
hilarious. hilarious. hilarious. hilarious.ReplyDelete
That was FAMAZING! Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.ReplyDelete
Hahahahahahaha! I used to get texts all the time from people who knew the girl with my number before it was mine. I should have done this!ReplyDelete
You truly have a gift! Thanks for the laughs!ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
I've read this three times, and have cried laughing every time.ReplyDelete
I wish we could be real life friends, because I feel like my life would be exponentially more entertaining. But alas, I will settle for stalking your blog on a regular basis.
This is AWESOME!! Thanks for the laugh!!ReplyDelete
If I were your friend, I would start handing out your phone number to people every chance I got.ReplyDelete
Some people just don't have a sense of humor! Glad to see you do. I loved reading this, ty!ReplyDelete
Bitchen. Reminds me of Phil Hendrie.ReplyDelete
So Funny!!! I am having flash backs of Girls Camp though...haha Good Times:)ReplyDelete
Couldn't stop laughing! Thanks for sharing! Maybe I'm too nice, because when I get texted by strangers, I give it away too quickly. Real texts from about a month and a half ago...ReplyDelete
Stranger: R u working
Me: Not really. Why?
Stranger: Being nosey...have u heard from gramma?
me: All my grandma's are dead- so no. I don't think I'm who you think I am.
Stranger: Sorry
I could have had so much more fun with that!
Another stranger text...
Stranger: By the way, that is an ugly T-shirt
I could have had fun with that too, but I skipped directly to "Who is this?" I have a lot to learn!
The best are "Will you work for me on Friday?" (or whenever) I always say yes. But i'm too nice to not send another text 10 minutes later with something like "Where do we work again?"
I just saw a link to this on Facebook tonight, and I am dying! I haven't laughed this hard in a long time! Thanks!ReplyDelete
Brilliant! Snuggies and Bump-it's are always the perfect gift ;)ReplyDelete
Epic. I hope she went with the garden gnomes.ReplyDelete
This is hurt me so much! Lol! I could hardly read around the tears of laughter. :PReplyDelete
You so rock!
Oh my! I can't stop laughing. Thank you for making the world a better place by just existing!ReplyDelete
I enjoyed this too much, I think. I want to share this with everyone I know! I'll make it part of my Christmas card!ReplyDelete
:) Nice. Also nice? That only girls have commented here (-1). lolReplyDelete
This gives me hope for humanity. Too dang funny!ReplyDelete
Love the new look (I'm referring to your blog, not the Venetian mask, tea kettle and snuggie). When's that snuggie giveaway gonna happen?ReplyDelete
Ok, before you get a restraining order against me I just have to make 1 more comment. This is probably my favorite (and possibly most overlooked) part of the whole post: "I get her t-shirts with kittens on them for every birthday and she always says she loves them and that she wears them on vacations and stuff." Every time I read this part I have a little vision in my head about a friend giving kitten shirts to another friend...and the friend swearing up and down that she wears them every time she's out of town (or anywhere that the giver of the gift just wouldn't be able to prove that she does, in fact, NOT wear them). I love this. I mean, she can't lie and say she wears them around the house because the friend could probably prove she's lying and that would lead to an awkward conversation. Not everyone appreciates an awkward conversation like we do.ReplyDelete
I don't know you but I randomly saw your blog on a friends facebook, and I have to tell you that this is seriously the FUNNIEST thing I have read! I started reading it to my hubby but was laughing so hard...crying actually he had to come and finish reading it with me!! too funny!! thank you for sharing!ReplyDelete
Hilarious! We need to be "friend-ies"... Honestly sad I dont know you personally, because like many others have said, I'm sure life would be much more fun, entertaining, etc. I'm a follower! Happy holidays, and please continue screwing with people!ReplyDelete
Hilarious! We need to be "friend-ies"... Honestly sad I dont know you personally, because like many others have said, I'm sure life would be much more fun, entertaining, etc. I'm a follower! Happy holidays, and please continue screwing with people!ReplyDelete
You are hilarious! Thanks for giving me a good laugh. :)ReplyDelete
Oh.my.goodness.... this had me laughing so hard i was crying. Thank you! (LOVED the picture in the Venetian mask)ReplyDelete
I am sitting here in my office, alone, laughing my head off! This is the funniest thing I've read in a long long time! Thank you for posting it...if ya got any more, send them my way! ~middle child momReplyDelete
I was having a downer day until I read this blog. This is hilarious! I can't believe she doesn't get the humor in the situation. You should just start texting random numbers for more conversations.ReplyDelete
Oh... my... gosh. Dude, I don't know you, but you just made my day. I almost cried laughing. You win the prize today. Can't wait to show my husband.ReplyDelete
I am such a sucker for a quick wit. I'm totally hiring you as my lawyer for life, as I'm sure any situation that would require my hiring a lawyer would also require a hefty dose of humor. Loved the follow up too- you realize you're going to end up marrying this poor girl don't you? (assuming you are not yet married-don't scar the girl THAT badly) Think of the snuggie slide show you could have at your reception or better yet a whole Snuggie theme. Snuggie chair covers, matching kitten snuggies for the bridesmaids and groomsmen- the possibilites are endless. And of course you can get get your own "I'm the Bride" and "I'm the Groom" snuggies for the horse drawn carriage ride.....ReplyDelete
I'm pretty sure elisweddingdesign.com isn't taken.
- AnonymousDecember 23, 2011 at 1:20 AM
HAHAHA! Can we be friends? That was wonderful! And thanks for the contact information - you made Facebook stalking even easier :)ReplyDelete
I dont' know you, but I found your blog on Pinterest. This story made my day. I had tears running down my face as I was laughing so hard. Thanks for that. Merry Christmas!ReplyDelete
Um, where did you get such a snuggie? It looks giguhuge-normous in the photo. Or maybe my vision is skewed; that is entirely possible.ReplyDelete
P.S. I'm pretty sure my boss is wondering why I'm shaking right now. I just hope he doesn't realize it's with laughter.
Wow! I just laughed til I cried. You are hilarious.ReplyDelete
I love your blog! Finally another blog I can actually relate to.ReplyDelete
You're my hero.ReplyDelete
You're my hero.ReplyDelete
I have a sister we call one eyed Wendy; I DJ a country Station in Rupert Idaho...This will be the topic of the day:)ReplyDelete
...my mom has this glitch in her phone that makes her get about 20 random texts from people a day...verizon can't figure out how to fix it...
I keep telling her she should use it as a tool to work on her humor. I've sent her a link to this blog for research.
Funny, but also kind of sad.ReplyDelete
Thanks for the laugh! I'm crying here.... That was awesome!ReplyDelete
The person who had my number before never tells anyone that her number is changed. Yesterday I got a text asking if he could trade me some beer for a story. Oh yes. Your idea is way more fun.ReplyDelete
I thoroughly enjoyed this! But you should probably take Jane out for a date. I think you two might just hit it off.ReplyDelete
That was freaking awesome. Almost makes me wish I had a phone again. Excellent!ReplyDelete
Today was my birthday and this was the best birthday present ever.ReplyDelete
halfsies on a 6 dollar giftReplyDelete
I like how she was trying to be so polite to you....She must have really wanted to save money on her gift badly to keep the dialogue going with you!ReplyDelete
Really funny stuff.
I would have asked her for a credit card number....ReplyDelete
The problem with being poor and giving gifts is that $5 is the smallest Arch card they will sell you.ReplyDelete
i'll get you some blocks that say U R A W E S O M E!, what a cheap wedding gift acutally! snuggies would set you back way more....they could throw the blocks at each other when they were fighting tho'ReplyDelete
ohmygarsh- this is funny! The Bloggess sent me- she said this was funny and The Bloggess never lies.....ReplyDelete
Oh Eli, you live in Utah, you should know that the pioneer ethic dictates we sew the Snuggies ourselves, particularly if they're to be given as wedding presents. I believe gingham is the fabric choice for a long, fruitful marriage.ReplyDelete
Are you married? Because I need you to be my future ex-husband.ReplyDelete
This post is such a win all around! Jane's unfailing politeness is honestly very refreshing and welcome, so props to her...But the real kudos go to Eli, dispenser of comedy GOLD! :) Thank you! :)ReplyDelete
I can't stop laughing! It's making me wheeze.ReplyDelete
I was laughing so hard as I read this (but silently, with lots of shaking), that my husband woke up panicked, thinking I was having some kind of seizure! Worth it.ReplyDelete
OK, so even though I'm a mommy blogger and made a lot of "Pshaw!" sounds while looking over your fake, insulting and basically hilarious mom blog...YOU ROCK! The next time I get a wrong number text, I probably won't say, "Sorry, wrong number." :)ReplyDelete
OMFG. Hilarious.ReplyDelete
And here I thought I was the only one who ever got a chicken stuck in their hair... Wait! My name is Wendy, also! Does this mean I'm doomed to lose an eye in a rubber band fight?! That's it. I'm going to wear protective eye gear from here on out.ReplyDelete
What makes this funnier is the fact that there's a book out called :Snuggie Sutra: LOLReplyDelete
OMG I am sitting here HOPING someone texts me by mistake LOL
Wow. That was grand on so many levels.ReplyDelete
I, too, would like to submit my "application" if you are single. ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
You are hilarious. Will you please be my friend?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 6, 2012 at 10:31 PM
What a wonderful mistake. I bet that you're one of those people that has never let a stranger :-) Keep up the funniness, especially amidst classes such as con law and such!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM
Oh my heck, I just did this today to some guy texting me thinking I was a girl he liked. A girl posted this link and you are hilarious! Genius!ReplyDelete
genius! pure hilarious genius! thanks for the laughs...ReplyDelete
This is so rad!!!!
You just made my day!
- AnonymousMarch 23, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Easily the funniest thing I have read in years. You, sir, rock.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM
OMG!!! My friend has been trying to get me to read this for a couple of months and I haven't bothered until just now. I don't think I have ever laughed that hard in my life!! Thank you for posting this!ReplyDelete
I found you again from the porch but a friend actually read this to me one day while grocery shopping. How excellent to find your blog once again.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMay 13, 2012 at 12:56 PM
I think I want Jane's number.ReplyDelete
As a young Mormon mommy I got a super angry late night phone call from a lady asking me why her boyfriend had my *%#+!! phone number in his wallet. Wish I had your wit for that wrong number!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM
O. M. G. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!ReplyDelete
oh my gosh! I wish that a stranger text me so I could do the same thing..I promise I would blog about it. Quick thinking!ReplyDelete
I'm a 911 dispatcher and I am at work reading this! I love it! I can't wait for someone to text me now! Thank you for the laugh!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 14, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Hahahaha! Laughing so hard right now!! This is hilarious! How could she not get that u were joking??? Best prank I have ever seen! Hahahahaha!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 14, 2012 at 3:45 PM
hahahaha "we have to get her a shelf too?" brilliant sense of humor!ReplyDelete
check out my friends video on youtube....google "Snuggie huggie Christmas". You are hilarious!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 16, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Hilarious!!! Love it!!!ReplyDelete
This is most hilarious. Hahahahahaha.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 17, 2012 at 11:52 AM
" I don't think they would appreciate live animals." HAHAHA! Nice!ReplyDelete
I want a Snuggie.ReplyDelete
Is there any way you could make a video where you are reading this conversation. I would really like to hear the way you would say the things you texted. Hope that doesn't sound weird lol.ReplyDelete
Eli, you're too much! I laughed so hard reading this!!ReplyDelete
Eli, I have never followed a blog before or commented on anything online, other than facebook. I have to admit though that laughter and humor are honestly the BEST medicine and therapy anyone can have EVER ! You made me laugh SO hard ! THANK YOU !!!ReplyDelete
I am so glad I am not the only one who read this and laughed so hard I cried... :)ReplyDelete
geesh, I just googled and the blocks of wood are only $20ReplyDelete
Jane is sorta cheap--Replies
It wasn't just one block of wood, it was lots of blocks of wood to put all around the house to decorate! DUH! LOLDelete
- AnonymousOctober 21, 2012 at 5:30 PM
I don't get how this is funny?ReplyDelete
I cannot stop laughing lol.ReplyDelete
Omg this is so funny! I almost peed my pants! HahaReplyDelete
So dang funny... nearly a year later this will never get old!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 25, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Absolutely hysterical!ReplyDelete
I'm crying from laughing to hard, and I tink I have to PEEEEEEEEEEE!!ReplyDelete
ahahhahaahah!!!!!!! Don't be awesome B-)!!!ReplyDelete
still good a year later. i wouldnt call it funny though.. just amusing for meReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 25, 2012 at 8:48 PM
I want to get a random text now.ReplyDelete
Eli, you are brilliant! I am so glad I recently discovered your blog. Thank you so much for the laughter!ReplyDelete
Thank you for the humor! My experience with lawyers has been the slimeball type that give all others a bad name. It's good to see one with humor!!
Thanks for making me laugh for the first time in a long time.
haha I wanna be friendsReplyDelete
Eli - I love you. Hilarious!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 2, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Sir. I think I love you.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2012 at 4:09 AM
good one! too funny!ReplyDelete
You should be best friends with Olan Rogers hahahaha... I needed a good laugh, thank you :)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 6, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Hahaha!!! I am crying this is so funny! I LOVE it!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 7, 2012 at 12:03 AM
Hahahahaha..this is hilarious...as is part 2...you have made a follower out of me!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 8, 2012 at 9:44 AM
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Found this on Pinterest. You are great! Thank you for the laugh. Really needed it today.ReplyDelete
I think I might love you.ReplyDelete
You are amazing.ReplyDelete
I bet she will think of you every time she even hears the word snuggie. lmao!!!!ReplyDelete
Holy shit. I cant stop laughingReplyDelete
I'm not sure what is funnier, your conversation with this stranger or all the marriage requests you're getting as a result of it. Wow!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 15, 2012 at 9:32 AM
uhm,so,this kinda sucked..ReplyDelete
I just read (somewhere up the in the long list of replies) that this whole thing is FAKE! I really enjoyed reading this post and got totally sucked in. I want the dream to live on! And I also want UPDATES. There aren't any :( I would assume that you two didn't ever end up meeting, didn't fall in love, didn't go on the Ellen show to share your story, Jane didn't become Fortify's second mom and all the reminiscing about snuggies, wooden blocks, summer camp and the Queen of Colors has come to an end. STOP THE MADNESS AND GIVE US UPDATES!ReplyDeleteReplies
Kara, there has been some speculation that this was all fake. Rest assured, it is not. I plan to give something of an update, or, at least, more background information soon, as we approach the year anniversary. So please stay tuned.Delete
Also, the Queen of Colors could never come to an end.
- AnonymousNovember 16, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Omg! Peeing my pants! Eli, you're a gem!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 17, 2012 at 8:53 PM
Omg. I sat here and laughed hysterically as I read part 1 and then almost in tears reading part 2. Thank you for posting this, it was so hilarious. I just started dying when you said you went and made a whole blog just to deter her.ReplyDelete
You are amazing! So glad you kept going! Sending pictures, hilarious. Crying from laughing so hard!!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM
I cannot stop laughing. Literally. Crying.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 24, 2012 at 1:55 PM
when I get my phone back I'm gonna see if a random number would do this with me?????????????ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 26, 2012 at 3:34 PM
- AnonymousNovember 27, 2012 at 8:06 AM
Amazing! This is the most hysterical thing I have ever read. I don't want no bunny banana frog ok no way! I'm going to arrange every one of those to say that when I see them from now on.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM
This brings joy to my heart.ReplyDelete
Oh man. Love it!ReplyDelete

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The state Senate today approved legislation that would bar the use of foreign law in Oklahoma courts. Senate Bill 1015 states that courts shall not enforce any foreign law as a means of mitigating punishment or providing justification for the commission of a crime.
Sen. Dan Newberry, author of the measure, said the bill was written to preserve constitutional rights and guarantees for those who enter Oklahoma courts.
"It's very simple, you either believe in our laws and believe they ought to take precedent over foreign laws in Oklahoma courts, or you don't," said Newberry, R-Tulsa. "Foreign law should never be used to defend the commission of a crime in Oklahoma, and this law simply guarantees that such a scenario will never take place."
SB 1015 will now advance to the House for consideration.
"Our legal system is an expression of our values, and I firmly believe the people of Oklahoma expect us to safeguard those values," Newberry said. "I'm grateful to my colleagues who stood with me today in favor of this legislation."