It was cold yesterday for the inauguration, and being the high fashion stylist and chronicler of social culture that I am, I noted that there was an absence of hats on many of the men. While I usually leave issues of sartorial splendor and naked heads to fashion maven Scott Greenfield (See: Lawyer Fashionista: The Naked Head), this desire to keep the head naked on a cold day was something I couldn’t help but notice.

And then I checked out this very cool photo from the New York Times, which allows you to scan the crowd on the podium and zoom in on people. As you hold the cursor over a person, it tells you who they are. I wasn’t looking for haberdashery at the time, I was just looking to see who had the primo seats.

So off to the left of President Obama’s (his right) up on the podium I spy some yokel in a blue baseball cap. Not a fedora, cowboy hat or driving cap, as a few were wearing, or something roguishly stylish, but a baseball cap.

Zoom, zoom, zoom. It’s Joe Lieberman.

Is it a sign of disrespect for Obama? Perhaps it was a combination of being unprepared for the cold after coming in from the warm climate of a Connecticut winter combined with lousy fashion sense?

I don’t know. But one thing is for certain, I scanned the crowd in the picture on the podium and he seemed to be in a rather distinct minority in his fashion choice. Of course, that might be a metaphor for his politics at this point.

I’ll be back with personal injury law soon.

Links to this post:

the [return of] blog l00t!
w00t! w00t! zac’s blog l00t! editorial and comment by zac “i wish i had a cool nickname” papantoniou. we here at the ls (aka “legal satyricon” for all you n00bs), have heard the longing cries and tearful sobs of our faithful flock of …

posted by AGhostInTheSnow @ January 27, 2009 12:51 PM

Beep.

You’ve reached the Turkewitz Law Firm. No one can take your call at the moment. We are watching the realization of a dream because a man was judged, not by the color of his skin but, by the content of his character.

After the tone please leave your name and number and someone will get back to you.

Beep.

Some snippets of fond farewells. Each has much more at the links provided:

From Bob Herbert in the New York Times, December 30, 2008: (Add Up The Damage):

I don’t think [Bush] should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country.

This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guantanamo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool’s gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.

From Paul Waldman at the American Prospect, November 11, 2008 (Goodbye and Good Riddance):

Goodbye to the rotating cast of butchers manning the White House’s legal abattoir, where the Constitution has been sliced and bled and gutted since September 11. Goodbye to the “unitary executive” theory and its claims that the president can do whatever he wants — even snatch an American citizen off the street and lock him up for life without charge, without legal representation, and without trial. Goodbye to the promiscuous use of “signing statements” (1,100 at last count) to declare that the law is whatever the president says it is, and that he’ll enforce only those laws he likes. Goodbye to an executive branch that treats lawfully issued subpoenas like suggestions that can be ignored.

From Andy Hoffman at The PopTort, January 1, 2009 (So Long Mr. Bush, and Thanks for all the Grief):

As fans of civil justice well know, consumers are kept safe from the havoc inflicted by corporate miscreants by both tough regulations and the deterrent effect of legal liability. Unfortunately, Bush and his cronies have done a lot of damage on both fronts — by turning federal regulatory agencies into apologists for corporate wrongdoing and then trying to use these agencies to immunize corporations from lawsuits.

“There ought to be limits to Freedom.”

— Gov. George W. Bush, May 21, 1999.

Blaring across the front page of today’s New York Times after a couple weeks of speculation is the story of Caroline Kennedy vying for Hillary’s Senate seat. One of the most disturbing parts of the article comes from an anonymous source who says that Gov. Paterson likes the idea of a Kennedy-Paterson ticket in 2010 when they both must run. This is the money quote:

“The upside of her candidacy is that the 2010 ballot will read Kennedy — Paterson,” said one of those advisers, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the governor’s thinking. “David craves national attention and money. If you connect the dots, it leads to her.”

Kennedy’s qualifications, apparently, are that she chose her parents well. She has done some fund raising for education, but is not known to have had a full time job in many years (though she does have a law degree).

Sorry, but that’s not good enough. In fact, I find it downright offensive. We’ve seen what happens when the child of a famous politician vaults into public service based on that fame, and not on actual achievements. After eight years of George Bush, I don’t care to see anyone, of any party, get an important position based on their name.

So here is a suggestion to consider for the vacant Senate seat: Chief Judge Judith Kaye, who has served as New York’s chief judge longer than anyone else, and done so with distinction. (There is a video tribute to Kaye at the New York Law Journal website. h/t Ed.) She is retiring now because she hit the mandatory retirement age of 70 (see: Chief Judge Kaye Says Goodbye).

Now I don’t know if Kaye actually wants the job. We’ve never met and she doesn’t know me from a hole in the wall.

But it seems to me that she has served with distinction, is widely trusted and respected, and thus should at least be considered for the position along with other qualified individuals.

Given that Paterson was known to be peeved that a woman was not part of the panel of potential replacements for Kaye for the chief judge slot, and that he would like a woman to replace Hillary, it seems that, as one of the most accomplished women in the state, her name should be in the mix for consideration.

One final item, given the scandal with Gov. Nutjob out in Illinois trying to sell Obama’s seat to the highest bidder — I hear he may consider eBay for this — it makes it even more important for Paterson to make sure that the person he picks is well-qualified.