Most people are aware of (sick of?) Steve Zack's Claude Pepper impression.

Less known is my spot-on impression of friend and noted mensch Burton Young.

Sure it sometimes lapses into a passable George Burns, but when you think about it, so does Burt.

Anyway, Burt knows what he is talking about, and has this to say about the ban on gay adoption in Florida:

Florida’s bizarre “law” was passed more than 30 years ago during the anti-gay hysteria of Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children campaign. The ban on gay adoption was borne out of prejudice, plain and simple. It had no scientific predicate. Its backers were nothing more than lynch-type rabble rousers.

On an unrelated note, people are still writing angry letters about George L. Metcalfe's "ad" in the Florida Bar News.

I like how Burt cites his possible contemporary Charles Dickens:

“If the law supposed that,” said Mr. Bumble, …”the law is an ass …” (Dickens, Pickwick Papers, [1836-37]).

Indeed.

Hi folks!

I don't know about you, but I'm a bit bored today.

Sure I could point out Vanessa Blum's well-written profile of Steve Zack.

BTW, did you know Steve does a Claude Pepper impression?

Hmm, maybe I should say, is there anyone out there who doesn't know Steve does a Claude Pepper impression?

Oh hail, perhaps the right question is -- does anyone even know who Claude Pepper is?

Like Steve, I do a killer George Raft impression, but for some reason the youngsters at the Bar functions just don't get into it like they used to.

Hey, did you know Representative Boehner's plan for transforming health care in America entails....reigning in junk lawsuits?

Oy veh.

For you helpless romantics (semantics?), a friend asks to break down Iqbal again:

The Iqbal court quoted the language from Twombly, that plaintiffs must "nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." I am moved to say that the court's pleading standard has gone from ridiculous to preposterous.

Of course, there is no practical difference between "conceivable" and "plausible," just as there is no real difference between "ridiculous" and "preposterous."

It only took me two minutes to find an opinion where the Court used "conceivable" and "plausible" interchangeably.

Not too long ago there was a case where the Supremes reversed a DC Circuit decision that Congress had violated equal protection with respect to a portion of the Cable Act. Here is F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307, 313-14 (1993):

In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. See Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 485 (1990); Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 600-603 (1987); United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174-179 (1980); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 484-485 (1970). Where there are "plausible reasons" for Congress' action, "our inquiry is at an end." United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, supra, at 179.

And then there’s the concurrence:

I continue to believe that, when Congress imposes a burden on one group, but leaves unaffected another that is similarly, though not identically, situated, "the Constitution requires something more than merely a `conceivable' or `plausible' explanation for the unequal treatment." United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 180 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment).

Is there any reason why “conceivable” and “plausible” are synonyms with respect to the rational basis test but not with respect to the pleading standard?

To sum it up, kids, is the Court’s wordplay laughable or risible?

Or as George Raft used to say, "part of it went on gambling, and part of it went on women. The rest I spent foolishly."

It's Friday, right?

I mean, where the hail is everybody?

I know Steve Zack is in South Africa (seriously) but what happened to everyone else?

So let's talk fashion. To me, "Flagler Fashion" means a big red nose, a seat at the bar at Sally Russell's, two dry Gin Gibsons, and some various crumpled papers from several different cases loosely assembled in one old, beat-up redweld.

But apparently, my sense of fashion is out-of-date:

What has landed on the slag heap of style is the old three-button power suit: slickly conservative, oversize and overpriced, worn with a boxy white shirt and a wide silk tie. It was all, as GQ’s creative director, Jim Moore, put it, “too big and too bold in all the wrong places.” Not so long ago, that ensemble blared of Wall Street success. Now, with public sentiment against financial institutions still high, racks of expensive Italian beauties languish in shops across the country.

"Too big and too bold in all the wrong places" -- I'm pretty sure that's a South Florida trademark.

Still, now that the "banker suit" is officially dead, we're supposed to all look like that Apple slacker dude from Live Free or Die Hard who somehow managed to date Drew Barrymore (something I find deeply infuriating):

[I]t represents a refinement of trends that men have picked up on in the last three or four years. Slim suits. Oxford cotton shirts. Skinny wool ties. Fine-gauge cardigans. Seersucker. Madras.
“Fashion didn’t stop this year, and it didn’t change,” said Tommy Fazio, the men’s fashion director of Bergdorf Goodman. “It’s the preppy chic these guys have been into, and they’re just refining it, with the right madras, the right pair of khakis, the right cotton sport jacket.”

Madras? Skinny wool ties?

I know a lot of guys in town who are going to have to wait this one out.

Hi kids!

Boy I remember when you could count the liberals in Miami on one hand -- Bob and Adele, Dante, Sandy (hi Gabrielle!), Arva, Claude, and yes, Bob Parks.

Well Bob writes in and wants you to cross out choice of forum provisions when you check into Hedonism III:

Upon arrival at the hotel, resort or cruise ship, a traveler should read the check-in documents closely. If there is a choice of forum clause, simply draw a line through that clause and initial the document. It is highly unlikely that the hotel will turn anyone away at the last minute, especially in today's economy.

Oy. Details details, I just want to get to the clothing-optional beach.

It seems like liberal lawyers have invaded the Herald today. Mike Catalano writes in about this new seat belt law:

As an attorney, I see cases all the time where people are stopped for ``driving while black.''

With this law, police no longer will need a reason to stop us, claiming that they wanted to see if we are wearing our seat belts. That is why this law failed to pass so many times in the past. It appears that getting $35 million is more important than civil liberties.

But Mike, in the State's defense, it was a really big check.

Al Viener writes in about impeaching Judge Bybee:

U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee knew, or should have known, that the torture he sought to justify was illegal and immoral, and that his legal opinion was fixed to reach a predetermined, plainly unlawful conclusion.

I think that's the charitable view. If he wrote that dreck irrespective of the desired outcome, we are in worse trouble than I thought.

Too bad your letters got printed next to this gentleman:

Now, eight years later, many of us seem to have forgotten the 9/11 victims whose lives were snuffed out by terrorists who hated our country and our way of life. How insane is it to use the Constitution that those murderers abhorred to protect their rights?

Yep, truly insane.

Wow, we even have my pal Steve Zack discussing his passions:

I also am concerned about access to the courts. The rule of law is based on access to the courts.

True, but Steve did you know the ABA has waded into the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act?

Guess which side, buddy!

I did a post over at David's fine blog regarding this great John Pacenti article on the lack of women on the newly appointed Federal Judicial Nominating Commission.

But I want to amplify it a bit here, from the comfort of my own crappy soapbox.

I give Lisa Lehner a lot of credit. She really lets loose and has some great quotes:

“I was appalled,” said Lehner, director of the Miami-Dade chapter of the Florida Association for Women Lawyers. “It’s mind-boggling. It’s a total and complete mystery how anyone can constitute a commission, which is supposed to be selecting candidates for federal office, with such a gross disparity and inequality toward women.”

Here's another:

Lehner said there have been problems with diversity on the state judicial nominating commissions, pointing to Gov. Charlie Crist’s request in December for a more diverse list of candidates to fill a Florida Supreme Court vacancy. “This is a pandemic. The state JNCs are abysmal,” she said.

She's right.

This one's my favorite:

“How do the guys do it? What’s the secret handshake here? What are we missing?” she said.

I don't know -- let's ask Steve Zack:

Zack, like other JNC members contacted, said he had no comment on the number of women on the commission.

No comment?

This comes on the heels of a remarkable study finding that the more attractive a woman is, the less competent she is judged to be:

According to an article by Tom Jacobs on the website of Santa Barbara's Miller-McCune Center, recently completed research at the University of South Florida indicates that, at least among a select group of students there, those who found the hockey mom more attractive also judged her less competent, less intelligent and less capable.

This didn't seem to have much impact in Palin's 2006 primary upset victory and statewide election as the largest state's first female governor.

But the finding, being published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, does conform with previous research that found attractive women in high-status jobs were perceived as less competent.

Both outcomes would seem to strongly indicate there's more to the glass ceiling for females than the actual glass. No news to them.

Back to the JNC -- I would say that if the Panel is not reconstituted, they will have a hard time recommending an older white guy to replace Judge Hurley or Judge Gold when he takes senior status.

What do you all think?

UPDATE -- Billy Shields has more:

Cuban American Bar Association president Roland Sanchez-Medina has fired off an angry letter to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, complaining about the lack of Cuban-American Democrats on a newly named federal judicial selection commission as well as a lack of consultation.

The Democratic Party has “been the road less traveled” for generations of Cuban-Americans, which means some of the most dedicated members are Cuban-Americans willing “to swim against the tide,” Sanchez-Medina wrote the senator Wednesday in a letter obtained by the DBR. “I was hopeful that some day those of us who persevered … would finally enjoy our day in the sun, and after this past election, I finally believed that day had come; that we would have a clear and unambiguous voice in the political process. Unfortunately with the stroke of a pen, you have damaged even my indefatigable spirit.”

Sanchez-Medina complained not only about a lack of representation but said that Nelson made his selections for the Judicial Nominating Commission without any consultation with local Cuban Democrats.

Come on -- that shouldn't be too hard. Just get all five in the room and talk.

Oh this is a kneeslapper, you know Steve Zack?

Here's the latest -- he broke his fibula.

Why, may you ask, is that interesting or even arguably newsworthy?

Here's why -- you're not going to believe how it happened:

``Silliest thing. There was loose gravel over a road. My left leg slipped. I tried to catch myself with the right leg and I fell on it. When I heard the pop, I knew it wasn't a good day.'' He's using a wheelchair and crutches, and expects to have a plate put in to help the bone heal straight and stabilize the ankle.

``Last time I broke an ankle was 40 years ago, playing tennis. It seemed to hurt a lot less.''

Meanwhile, he's using audio-visual conferencing to conduct business.

Kids, now this one's a keeper!

Rich with gripping detail, sucking the listener in as Zack regales -- preferably with exaggerated facial expressions and body movements -- how he slipped on one leg, tried to catch himself on the other, then fell on the gravel on the road, then heard a pop -- oh this is anecdote gold!!

One for the grandkids, ladies and gentlemen, or at least the next 40 speaking engagements.

And the audio-visual conferencing nugget just adds impressive luster to the tale -- there he is, the commander of the Starship ABA Enterprise, "opening up a channel" on one of the many Starfleet hailing frequencies, servicing clients and weighing in on Federation matters large and small.

BTW, this is our way of hoping Steve gets well soon.