This morning I wrote about how the Supreme Court caught Judge Stephen Reinhardt calling a lawyer’s presentation “substantial” in one opinion — and then, in a later opinion, calling that same presentation “insubstantial” . . . when characterizing it that way helped him reverse a death verdict.
The L.A. Times‘s David Savage wrote about the Supreme Court decision today. Do you think Savage mentioned Reinhardt’s curious little shift of phrasing?
If you guessed “no” you win the grand prize.
P.S. If you want to know where to go to claim your prize, then you probably think you deserve a medal for being able to eat your own breakfast. Real impressive feat, Sherlock. You figured out that the L.A. Times didn’t rat out a liberal judge! What, pray tell, was your first clue??