The Faculty Lounge

Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy

"Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" was written by Don Raye and Hughie Prince in 1941, and first performed by the Andrews Sisters in the Abbott and Costello film Buck Privates. Their recording reached number six on the pop charts the same year. It was nominated for an Academy Award, but did not win. "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" has been covered numerous times, usually by female trios, and mostly with arrangements similar to the Andrews Sisters', if not outright imitations right down to the uniforms. Possible inspirations for the trumpeter have included Clarence Zylman (1906-88) and Harry Gish (1922-2005), both of whom had played "out Chicago way." Of course, there needn't have been a single inspiration for the song.

The sisters' other hits, though none as closely associated with them as "Bugle Boy," included "Beer Barrel Polka (Roll Out the Barrel)," "Beat Me Daddy, Eight to the Bar," "Don't Sit Under the Apple Tree (With Anyone Else but Me),” "Rum and Coca Cola," and  "Bei Mir Bist Du Schön (Means That You're Grand).” It might seem odd that the Minnesota-born, Greek-Norwegian Andrews Sisters popularized a song originally written in Yiddish, but the lyrics were translated for them by Sammy Cahn and the arrangement was by the appropriately named Vic Schoen, a couple of Jewish guys from New York.

Don't miss the Patty Andrews solo at the bottom of the post.

In Memoriam: Mitchell Engler

In very sad news, Mitch Engler, Professor at Cardozo  Law, passed away on November 4.  He served on the Cardozo Law faculty for 23 years.  Engler was 58.

 

 

 

Don’t Be Late

This is the sixth guest post by Steven Epstein from his book, Extreme Punishment:  The Chilling True Story of Acclaimed Law Professor Dan Markel’s Murder.

The following is an excerpt from Chapter 8, Ivory Tower:

Law professors typically employ the Socratic method to impart their wisdom in the classroom, rather than the lecture style that predominates in undergraduate education.  Students are called on randomly—drafted without their consent—and are asked a series of questions about the assigned reading.  “Mr. Jones,” the questioning might begin, snapping the unfortunate soul in the back row to attention in an instant.  “Why did the court consider the gun the fruit of the poisonous tree?”

The initial question is nearly always followed by progressively more difficult ones even seasoned attorneys would struggle to answer.  The professor will often toss hypotheticals into the questions designed to flesh out how malleable legal principles are to different factual scenarios, the student on the hot seat merely a prop to illustrate the law in action.  For brand new law students, being on the receiving end of a professor’s rapid-fire interrogation can seem intimidating, even fear-inducing.  That was especially true when the intense gaze of Professor Dan Markel was locked on a 1L who wasn’t thoroughly prepared.

Dan desperately wanted his students to succeed, but expected their complete buy-in in their own education.  Which left him bitterly disappointed when they showed up late or unprepared, or when he detected them surfing the internet on their laptops or texting instead of focusing on him.  On occasion he’d lock the classroom doors the moment class began; when he didn’t, he’d berate students who sauntered into the classroom a few minutes late, instructing those who arrived even later to leave.  Because he was such a stickler for punctuality, it wasn’t uncommon to see students racing through the hallways to make it to his class on time.

 

Taboo Trades Podcast: Mary Anne Case on A Post-Dobbs Right to F*$#

In today’s episode, UVA Law 3Ls Reidar Composano and Bryan Blaylock join me to continue our discussion with University of Chicago Law professor, Mary Anne Case, about her forthcoming paper, Donorsexuality. The f-bomb is dropped (but for reasons relevant to the paper) and I emphasize (again) that all this Con Law talk is not welcome on my podcast. No one listens to me. 

 

 

Case litigated for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and was professor of law and Class of 1966 Research Professor at the University of Virginia before joining the Chicago Law School faculty. Her scholarship has concentrated on the regulation of sex, gender, sexuality, religion, and family; and the early history of feminism.

Mary Anne Case faculty bio: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/case

 

SCOTUS Made Reasonable Gun Control Almost Impossible

My new column is posted at The Hill, explaining the disastrous consequences of the Supreme Court’s recent Bruen decision. As three lower courts recently discovered, it makes reasonable gun control almost impossible.

Here is the gist:

The Hill

The Supreme Court’s bad history

by Steven Lubet, Opinion Contributor - 11/16/22

According to Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion, a gun control statute can be upheld only if there is an “American tradition justifying” its specific provisions, meaning similar laws in force around 1791 (when the Second Amendment was adopted) or 1868 (when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, which made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states).

It is unsurprising that poor history leads to unmanageable law. Three lower court judges recently discovered that the Bruen standard is almost impossible to apply reasonably to contemporary circumstances.

District Judge Joseph Goodwin, sitting in West Virginia, determined that he could not enforce the federal criminal law against knowing possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, despite “the usefulness of serial numbers in solving gun crimes.”

Mississippi District Judge Carlton Reeves faced a similar problem in a prosecution under “the federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.”

Even domestic abusers get a pass under Bruen, as Texas District Court Judge David Counts ruled in U.S. v. Perez-Gallan. With “historical analysis being the only tool” permitted, Counts determined that the Second Amendment required him to dismiss charges against a gun-carrying defendant who was under a restraining order for “threatening . . . domestic violence.”

Under Bruen, a silent historical record disables the courts and law enforcement from protecting the population from mayhem. Ghost guns, armed felons and domestic abusers may be shielded by the Constitution in ways that vulnerable school children are not.

Many observers have characterized Thomas’s approach as cherry picking, but that is too generous. Cherry picking, after all, at least yields something worth having. Bruen’s holding, on the other hand, just leaves a dangerous mess.

You can read the entire essay at The Hill.