A New Favorite Footnote?

The current champ is here. The challenger also comes from the Seventh Circuit. There’s a federal law that requires all federal prisoners upon release to provide a blood sample that will then be used for a nationwide DNA database. In this case, the prisoner argued, among other things, that extracting the blood would be cruel and unusual punishment. His truly original (and originalist) argument is dismissed in footnote three:

Hook provides an uncited, but novel assertion that the Founding Fathers would have considered “blood extraction” to be “cruel and unusual punishment” because, purportedly, “[v]ampires were feared and vilified” at the time of the Founding. Even accepting this proposition, blood extraction by a vampire is certainly distinguishable from a sanitary blood draw under current medical practice.

Explore posts in the same categories: Appellate And Post-Conviction Issues, Legal News

4 Comments on “A New Favorite Footnote?”

  1. Dan Says:

    This is why I want to be a judge. How hard is law school?

  2. wheeler Says:

    not hard at all. if you can read, you can graduate with honors.

  3. Anon Y Mous Says:

    Have you seen footnotes 1 and 2 in this jewel of a case?


  4. Baudrillard Says:

    I love it. We don’t get stuff this good on the Ala. Supremes. No, here, the jokes aren’t in the footnotes, they’re sitting in their office down the hall writing blogs rather than reducing their caseload.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: