Friday, January 22, 2010

SFL Friday -- White Men Can't Think Either.

Well it's been a rough week and I'm starting to ease my way out of the office to catch a few waves.

I know a lot of you weekend warriors fashion yourselves to be "good" basketball players, so you may be interested in this new and exciting B-Ball league.

There's only one catch:
"Only players that are natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race are eligible to play in the league," the statement said.

But I'm sure there's a very fine reason to return us to the 1950s, before basketball was integrated and the world was just like Pleasantville only better:
AABA's Lewis describes his project as "a league for white players to play fundamental basketball, which they like ... instead of 'streetball' played by 'people of color.'"
Just who is the target audience for this -- elderly racists?

It's not clear, but why do I think members of the Tribe aren't going to make the roster either?

(Must be the old random circumcision check -- also popular in the 50s.)

Now that I think of it, they're probably not too keen on Catholics either.

BTW, my friend Alan Fein thinks this guy is meshugga:
"It strikes me as discriminatory on its face without any real justification," says Alan Fein, a Miami-based sports-law and First Amendment attorney who serves as outside counsel to the Miami Heat. "You can base membership on some sort of objective standard, like height or vertical ability, but I don't think this league would stand up, if challenged."
Alan's trying to be polite, but I won't -- you sir are an idiot.

Wow, now I really want get out of here.

Before I do, I need to bone up on my legal defense strategies, try not to make people angry, and -- big surprise -- John Mayer is still a jerk.

Remember, there are lots and lots of volunteer opportunities this weekend and for once George W. Bush is right -- send money.

Have a great weekend!


fake Glenn Greenwald said...

I want to begin by examining several of the most common reactions among critics of this decision, none of which seems persuasive to me. Critics emphasize that the Court's ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it's not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn't. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can't be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).

One of the central lessons of the Bush era should have been that illegal or unconstitutional actions -- warrantless eavesdropping, torture, unilateral Presidential programs -- can't be justified because of the allegedly good results they produce (Protecting us from the Terrorists). The "rule of law" means we faithfully apply it in ways that produce outcomes we like and outcomes we don't like. Denouncing court rulings because they invalidate laws one likes is what the Right often does (see how they reflexively and immediately protest every state court ruling invaliding opposite-sex-only marriage laws without bothering to even read about the binding precedents), and that behavior is irrational in the extreme. If the Constitution or other laws bar the government action in question, then that's the end of the inquiry; whether those actions produce good results is really not germane. Thus, those who want to object to the Court's ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called "compelling state interests," that the Court's decision will produce "bad results" is not really an argument.

Neil Rogers on Shumie Time said...

It's Friday you bastards.


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

If we got rid of all the loser assholes with stupid comments I'd feel less like I was locked in doc review at a big firm with loser asshols with , ah, shortcomings....

Shoot The Lawyers said...

Back to the 50's? Think before you speak. There was no overt discrimination against African American players in that decade Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Oscar Robertson played college ball in that era. I seem to recall that Kansas in one year started 4/5 black players in the NCAA championship game.

eyeondelo said...

I vote to remove Shumie and replace him with Max "Jack" Deloplane. The kid has been tearing it up in court and he drives the new Austin Martin and lives it up on a large condo on Fisher Island. Hits the office all day and snags a new model out of the So Be clubs every few nights. Ace tennis player, and heir to the German Krupp fortune. Works for fun he says. Blows Shumie away and even tagged a hot milfy judge a few months ago .

Eyeonshumie said...

Woa woa woa. Hold your horses. Let's not write the great man off just yet. He's got the new Shelby Cobra Mustang and a fresh box of Cubans and the Super Bowl is coming to town. There's plenty of good times left in the big fella.

South Florida Lawyers said...

9:46, quite right -- I had originally written the 30s but it didn't have the same ring.

At the college level, however, I think it was not until the early 60s that you saw integrated teams and even then that was very controversial.

shumie all the way said...

I'm sticking with the Shum. Old school. Pretenders to the throne come and go, but there will always be only one shumie and one shumie time.

fake blecher said...

FYI- Jim Cramer used the term "shumie time" twice this week when referring to a stock to stay away from or sell. There's some life left in the old boy yet.

Anonymous said...

The Florida Bar's white guys can't think either:

John B. Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146

January 23, 2010
Paul Hill
General Counsel
The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399 Via Fax and e-mail


Dear Mr. Hill:

I have purchased, as my own, the above-noted Internet domain name, as indicated by the below information wonderfully available at any domain registry such as and :

Domain ID:D108244220-LROR
Created On:09-Nov-2005 11:10:27 UTC
Last Updated On:08-Oct-2007 16:35:06 UTC
Expiration Date:09-Nov-2010 11:10:27 UTC
Sponsoring Inc. (R71-LROR)
Registrant ID:0211000453d46626
Registrant Name:John Thompson
Registrant Organization:John B. Thompson, Attorney
Registrant Street1:5721 riviera drive
Registrant City:Coral gables
Registrant State/Province:FL
Registrant Postal Code:33146
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.3056664366

I plan to start using this registered domain for a web site to get the truth out about The Florida Bar. Please advise if The Florida Bar, whose site is, wants to buy the site from me and for how much. The Bar, as you know, bought a whole bunch of domain names similar to its own and missed this one. The Bar misses a bunch of stuff, it seems.

Regards, Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

Jack: sweet idea. I hope you get alot of traffic and hits. Can we advertise our porn sites on the front page?

Anonymous said...

Think how whacked out Jack would be if he smoked weed.

Anonymous said...

shumie, jack thompson and religion only on the sfl blog.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Do something about these comments SFL.

Anonymous said...

Genial post and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.