Harry Potter was great last night. The three of us who went to the movie together enjoyed each other's company, and we timed our arrival perfectly to be able to walk in without waiting in line while still getting great seats.

The crowd was extremely well behaved, fully of 20- and 30-somethings, but without a single flash of a cell phone screen throughout the movie!

The movie itself was wonderful. Our quibbles with it were relatively minor--more for stuff they randomly added or changed for no particular reason than with things they left out. We would have liked to have seen some of the omitted scenes, but at least they didn't really leave out any key information!

The movie was also beautiful--gorgeous scenery, beautiful coloring, and great sets. Add in Ron drunk on love potion and Harry high on Felix Felicis, and wonderful scenes starring Alan Rickman, and we have a winner!

I'm half-listening to the confirmation hearings (hooray for Perry Mason inspiring Sotomayor's legal philosophy!), and I have this sudden image:

Me, on the Senate Judicial Committee, many years from now, holding a confirmation hearing for Justice Sotomayor's replacement. I look down from the dais at the nominee and reminisce about studying for the bar while watching the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. With that in mind, I say, I have a question for you:

In a civil action tried to a jury, the defendant objects to the introduction by the plaintiff of certain evidence without the judge's first making a preliminary ruling on the admissibility of evidence.

For which evidence is the defendant's objection NOT appropriate?

A. Opinion testimony regarding structural integrity of a building by an engineer called by plaintiff, without preliminary determination by the judge that the engineer is an expert.
B. Hospital records pertaining to the plaintiff, offered by the plaintiff, without a preliminary determination by the judge that they were made as a regular activity of the hospital staff.
c. Contract negotiations between the plaintiff and a third party, without a preliminary determination by the judge that the third party was defendant's agent.
D. A paramedic's testimony that the plaintiff's wife, before she died, said that the defendant's car went through a red light before hitting her, without a preliminary determination by the judge that she made the statement under a sense of impending death.

If the nominee doesn't answer C, they just lost my vote. :)

Dear Sen. Specter,

1. Just because you gave her a heads up of an upcoming question doesn't mean she's able to answer an improper question.

2. Alito is now a Justice (not a judge), and his name is pronounced Aleeto.

3. If you're cutting off the nominee so that you can get to all your questions, why not try actually asking a question in fewer than 5 pages of text? Seriously: "The Supreme Court decides on all the key issues of the day, and for the biggest cases, it is frequently almost impossible to get a seat in the chamber. The current Justices frequently appear on television, and many have expressed at least a feeling of inevitability of televising oral arguments. What are your thoughts on the matter?"

Fan of the craziness,
Me

P.S. Go Perry Mason references!

Why didn't an aide have this information? I mean, they've got these fancy iPhones and such!

The case Perry Mason lost was "The Case of the Deadly Verdict," which aired on 10/17/1963. But apparently it wasn't his fault--his client withheld crucial exculpatory evidence!