I Think You Meant to Say Justice “Hamburglar”
In an L.A. Times review of a PBS documentary on the Supreme Court, Times Staff Writer Robert Lloyd fills us in on some little-known “facts” from the history of the Supreme Court. Here is perhaps the littlest-known of those little-known facts:
There was a justice named Hamburger and a justice named Frankfurter.
There was a justice named Hamburger?
As Howard Bashman notes:
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger was not widely known by the nickname “Ham” as best as I can tell.
I don’t know, though, Howard. That’s a pretty bold statement for a mere Internet blogger like you to make, knowing that this review was carefully scrutinized by those “four experienced Times editors” that the late David Shaw so famously told us about.
Oh hey — by the way, I looked over the list of Supreme Court Justices and found some other meaty selections that Robert Lloyd (and his four layers of editors) apparently overlooked, including:
- Fred M. Venison
- Potroast Stewart
and my personal favorite:
- “Sloppy” Joe Story
Add your own in the comments, while we await the correction. I’m thinking it will be funny no matter how they word it.
The obvious one is Salmon P. Chase but what about David “Chicken Noodle” Sou
pter? Or Melville “No thanks, I’m” Fuller?Damn, that’s harder than it looks.
Comment by jinnmabe — 1/30/2007 @ 10:24 pm
BTW, do you know what they called Warren Burger in France?
Comment by Steve Smith — 1/30/2007 @ 10:38 pm
“Smoked” Salmon P. Chase?
Comment by DRJ — 1/30/2007 @ 10:54 pm
Hugo Black-eyed Peas?
Comment by DRJ — 1/30/2007 @ 10:58 pm
Ich bin ein Hamburger.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/30/2007 @ 11:18 pm
Tom Turkey Clark
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 1/30/2007 @ 11:55 pm
Does Brandeis sauce go well with Fred Venison?
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 1/30/2007 @ 11:58 pm
I was trying to come up with some kind of Cardozo-capicola pun, but I suck.
Comment by BC — 1/31/2007 @ 1:45 am
There is a book by Philip Hamburger, “The Great Judge”, about Learned Hand. So perhaps the article had an unnamed contributor with a hearing problem.
Comment by Bradley J. Fikes — 1/31/2007 @ 7:19 am
If you want to know what is really pathetic about that paper just go here to a piece on the new Ford SUV. Not only does this clown fail to mention either car or stats til the fifth paragraph, but he rambles on about something altogether different than a review of the Ford.
Cutting to the chase: The new Ford SUV gets great gas milage—28-32mpg—is super cheap due to a Federal rebate of $3K, has rear wheel drive, and is a dam good SUV priced to sell right now.
Then go into the bullshit.
Comment by Duke — 1/31/2007 @ 8:36 am
Other less well known nicknames:
William “Spanky” Rehnquist.
David “Clubber Lang” Souter.
Comment by Army Lawyer — 1/31/2007 @ 8:44 am
Duke…What the hell was that all about?
I feel…dirty.
Comment by Leviticus — 1/31/2007 @ 9:03 am
Duke,
How can you be so mean to such a well intentioned fellow? He cares about the auto workers! He cries at puppy shows! Vulgar demand for factual information should not restrict the need for emotional authenticity and self-actualization.
Comment by Bradley J. Fikes — 1/31/2007 @ 9:30 am
Was the byline “Homer Simpson”?
Comment by andycanuck — 1/31/2007 @ 10:51 am
Perhaps he was thinking of a well known, fictional District Attorney.
Comment by Bill H — 1/31/2007 @ 11:16 am
Marge: Do you want your son to grow up to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or a sleazy male stripper?
Homer: Can’t he be both like the late Earl Warren?
Marge: Earl Warren was not a stripper!!!!
Homer: Now who’s being naive?
Comment by SaveFarris — 1/31/2007 @ 11:19 am
you think the times is bad? really? at the san francisco chronicle, they go in for cutesy, risque headlines, sometimes too much. a story about a woman fighting off a mountain lion had its title changed this morning to “on fighting off a mountain lion” from what it said yesterday, which was “on beating off a mountain lion”.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 1/31/2007 @ 2:08 pm
Maybe Lloyd cared less about accuracy than a chance to take a shot those awful right-wingers. As in his parenthetical remark — after referring to John Marshall’s historic decisions establishing the court’s role of constitutional interpretation — “A nice irony ‘original intemt’ hard-liners might want to overlook.” Maybe someone should enlighten me — how does one point relate to the other?
And to take one more shot, Lloyd suggested toat former Chief Justice RehnqCrust Or in his
Comment by James Fulton — 1/31/2007 @ 3:28 pm
To finish up the previous post, Lloyd suggested, parenthetically again, Rehnquist contradicted his own stand for state’s rights by ruling in favor of Bush over Gore in the 2000 presidential election’s Florida counting.
For all I know, the PBS special claims those inconsistencies, but if not, I’ve just about had it with the Calendar’s ideologically motivated critics. Let the Times cost-cutters junk the whole section and turn the job over to AP.
Comment by James Fulton — 1/31/2007 @ 3:37 pm
I was wondering if he was confusing Warren Burger with Hamilton Burger from Perry Mason.
Comment by sharon — 1/31/2007 @ 7:37 pm
Sharon,
I bet you are right. Of course, if that’s true, it makes this mistake even more comical and proves once again that the media sees everything through a Hollywood lens.
Comment by DRJ — 1/31/2007 @ 7:41 pm
Look, Sharon, I’m not stupid. Everybody knows Perry Mason, just like West Wing, was real!!
(It was …wasn’t it?)
By Robert Lloyd, Times Staff Writer
Comment by Patricia — 1/31/2007 @ 7:45 pm
The Daily Show’s book had a whole list of justice inspired sandwitches (e.g. “The Ruth Bader Ginsburger and the Hugo L. Blackened Chicken Sandwich”) all served with choice of, among others, Oliver Wendell Homefries or Hash Browns v. Board of Education. They also noted the startling ommission of 19th century Chief Justice Thomas W. Turkeyclubonryenomayo.
Comment by Polybius — 1/31/2007 @ 11:12 pm