This all culminates in a dramatic courtroom scene, where the Duke of Venice, and his assembled judges, beg Shylock not to pursue what is, by the strictest letter of the law, his: Antonio’s life. Shylock refuses, but Antonio is saved when a mysterious jurist asserts a technicality to defeat his claim, and, in what comes to resemble the legal equivalent of mob violence, strip Shylock of his property and forcibly convert him. Hmm.

As a matter of jurisprudence, this result ought to disappoint — and not just for the truly epic, anti-Semitic overkill. Shylock shouldn’t lose because defense counsel is more clever and splits finer hairs; he should lose because he’s wrong, and supervening notions of justice ought to defeat a technically lawful but morally deficient claim.

Although that statement will strike most as naïve, the law regularly provides for just such “outs.” A contract may be voidable where obtained by duress, where it results from an unconscionable process or creates an unconscionable result, or if it violates “public policy.” A foreign act or judgment may be denied comity where its enforcement would similarly violate public policy (this is the theory behind the Defense of Marriage Act; why “public policy” defeats the constitutional text, though, is another question entirely). And the state may by general (but not specific) law proscribe certain bargains, and therefore limit the right to contract. Some of these doctrines prove incredibly difficult to implement; accordingly, they see little application, not because we don’t trust their motivating theories, but because we can’t trust ourselves to implement them well. Nevertheless, they’re worthwhile tools, not just because they help jurists reach the right result in tough cases, but because by their use, they affirm the vital understanding that laws reflect but are not themselves morality (cf. Piso’s Justice).

Contra Republican talking points, appreciating this point is a vital part of the task of judging, and underlies some of the more important legal victories of the modern era. For example, it’s a politely kept secret that the Commerce Clause probably doesn’t, of its own force, support modern anti-segregation laws — but woe betide the judge who holds as much. Somehow, still, the importance of empathy, and the notion that justices ought to care about Justice writ large, remain controversial. Knowing this, it’s hard not to see Merchant of Venice as a missed opportunity. It’s a much better story, and says better things about us as a culture, if Antonio survives because of something more than a technicality. Of course, that would make good law, but it probably wouldn’t make good theater.

New Yorkers, go see this show while you still can! I’m definitely going a second time. I will make them all BLEED.

A sample, from the less polished world premiere. The current lead is great, and already has a movie deal!

Oh man, just wrapped up an EPIC game of grab ass with Gov. Bobby Jindal. He definitely won. #bpcares

The good news: Mermaids are real. The bad news: They are now extinct. #bpcares

Oh man, this whole time we’ve been trying to stop SEAWATER from gushing into our OIL. Stupid Terry was holding the diagram upside down.

This is why the internet exists, and good for these unnamed satirists for flirting with the border between satire & internet impersonation. But one of their recent tweets might be just a bit reckless:

Someone from an Alaska area code keeps trying to call us. Not answering for fear it’s an angry and newly pregnant Bristol Palin #itsnotmine

A tweet about oil and teen pregnancy: this is Palin territory. How can she miss it? And when she doesn’t, how will she make it about Trig, her favorite prop?

In a political environment where the key question about healthcare reform is whether the President is a “socialist,” a primetime attempt to get back to the real fight, against abusive insurance regulations, is well taken.

“No suited voyeurs”?

“No closeted Republican senators allowed”?

I’m curious to hear your thoughts, but be warned, the bar is pretty high: that last one wasn’t mine, but it’s pretty much the most awesome thing I’ve ever heard.

Conservapedia: Andy Schlafly WILL seek state funding to provide Supplemental Education Services, and plans to submit his application today. I have an e-mail in to the New Jersey Department of Education asking where to send my list of “recommended reading” on Schlafly. I’ll update when (if) I hear back.

Futurama: one of my favorite shows, canceled a while back by Fox (a surefire sign of its greatness), just put out its last of four planned straight-to-DVD movies. Of the three already out, two were great, and this recent release (“Into the Wild Green Yonder”) has gotten great reviews. Without being able to verify that report (yet), I recommend you BUY IT anyways: apparently, stellar DVD sales have prompted Fox to at least open dialogue with Matt Groening over the possibility of a formal Futurama season six. In other words, $30 buys you a probably-good DVD and a “yes” vote for Futurama’s… umm… future.

Lost: tonight’s episode focuses on John Locke (aka “Jeremy Bentham”), and owing to its subject matter, will go a long way towards proving or disproving my theory that the show has gotten a little preachy.

And, in the meantime, a picture of my cat!

Using “lolcat” font (all-caps Impact bold) doesn’t really help their case, either. Nor does a front-page story about Atlantis. It’s only a matter of time before Fox starts reporting on “Evlis” sightings.