Tuesday, February 22, 2005subliminal messages from the Supreme Court
So I'm reading an opinion that the Supreme Court put out today, about whether somebody injured on a dredge in Boston Harbor is covered by this specific federal legislation, and it's all about the meaning of the word "vessel." So the Reporter of Decisions -- the person at the Court who writes the executive summary of the decision, which appears at the beginning -- writes that the Court holds that certain precedents did not change the "definition of vesselhood." Vesselhood? Who ever heard of a word such as "vesselhood"? And googling it, I find that the word only seems to pop up in religious and mystical contexts, computer gaming, and discussion of the Vagina Monologues. So I'm wondering, is the subliminal message here about religion or vaginas?
posted by sam 10:51 AM 3 comments
Well, I don't practice, but:
Wilander was the worst piece of crap there ever was. The smelliest, stinkiest, stupidest case I read in three years of law school. Oft cited, never debated, yet utterly and completely wrong. Here's my easy definition: If the person may only reasonably be expected to evacuate the "vessel" in case of emergency by (i)immersion or (ii)to another object ordinarily supported by a fluid, then the person is a seaman.
By 3:21 PM, at
gimme a break!!
Obviously they meant "vesselness." Or maybe "vesselitude."
By 9:58 PM, at