Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Scotus140: Supreme Court Twitter competition

As part of a charity effort for the Connecticut bar foundation, Daniel Schwartz has invited Twitter users to summarize a single Supreme Court case of their choice in a single Tweet, that is, in 140 characters or less. Some of the more amusing results:

@gideonstrumpet Gideon v. Wainwright: helping poor people get convicted WITH the assistance of counsel since 1963.

@GoldnI Brown v. Board of Ed: "Hey Eisenhower, just kidding about the conservative thing. Love, Earl Warren."

@conlawgeek Gonzales v. Raich: "Dude, but I have a valid prescription for... uh... medical... uh... what were we talking about?"

@Popehat Lawrence v. Texas: "....not that there's anything wrong with that."

@ThirdTierAmie Buck v. Bell: You're dumb, your mama's dumb, even your mama's mama is dumb! Three generations of imbeciles are enough!

@AdamBonin Pleasant Grove City v Summum: Put up your wacky religious monument in your own damn park, freaks.

@david_m_wagner Wickard v. Filburn: Wheat. Wheat. The Constitution's dead, they're talkin' about wheat.

@coolasmcqueen U.S. v. Nixon: We have the privilege of informing you that you ARE a crook

My own contribution:

@walterolson Bates v. State Bar of Ariz.: OK guys, go ahead and advertise for clients. Might boost our traffic down the road.



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.