This month, The National Jurist printed Christine Willard’s article on law student weblogs, which included a short quote from Yours Truly. This surprised me, because Willard’s assistant--a young editorial intern whose name shall remain undisclosed--met me for a rather lengthy lunch interview that, in my opinion, merited more than the two short paragraphs it received in the final cut. But when I called Willard for an explanation, she muttered something about ‘CIA blacklists’ before hanging up the phone. So, looking out for the interests of my readers, I have provided the transcript of that interview below, free of charge.
NationalJurist: Thanks for sitting down with me today. This interview really means a lot to the magazine.
WingsandVodka: No problem.
NJ: So, if you don’t mind, I’d like to start by asking you to comment on a few of the more sensational rumors that have been flying around.
WV: Ask away.
NJ: I’ve been told by more than one industry source that you were responsible for creating the Logic Games section of the October 2003 LSAT. Any comment?
WV: None, except to say that every major LSAT guide put out in the last three years has been warning students about the possible reappearance of a Circular Sequencing Game, so people should quit their bitching.
NJ: Fair enough. What about allegations that you faked your entire law school application package?
WV: That really comes down to how you would define ‘faked’. If by ‘faked’ you mean ‘hacked into LSAC’s databases to alter my scores, listed ‘Jesus’ , ‘Gandhi’, and ‘John Stamos’ as my recommenders, and falsely claimed to have been elected SG president at both Harvard and Swarthmore’, then, well, yes, I faked my application. But I don’t really think that’s how the majority of folks would define it.
NJ: And what do you say to reports that have you romantically linked with Natalie Portman?
WV: Completely false.
WV: Really. We’re just friends. It’s totally innocent.
NJ: Are you currently seeing anyone else?
WV: No, not at the moment. I like to read law review articles aloud in bed, and I think that a girlfriend would really get in the way of that.
NJ: The first year of law school is certainly the most demanding. How do you manage to go to class, get all of your studying done, write a world-famous web log, front a Phil Collins cover band, represent financially disadvantaged prostitutes, and raise prize-winning tabby cats, all while supporting as many as thirteen illegitimate children?
WV: I really can’t take all of the credit. Donna--my secretary--she’s totally on top of stuff.
NJ: You have a secretary?
WV: Oh yeah. I’d be completely lost without her. In fact, I’m thinking about giving her a title bump, up to ‘Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff’. She really deserves it.
NJ: Are you sure you’re not getting yourself confused with Josh Lyman, from The West Wing?
WV: Right. Sorry. You’ll have to forgive me. Finals are close, things get fuzzy. Can we move on?
NJ: Certainly. Now, it’s well known that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor regards you as a trusted advisor. Could you elaborate a bit on the nature of your relationship?
WV: It’s no big deal. She calls once in awhile. I’ll be lying in bed, recovering from a night of clubbing or whatever, and the phone will ring. ‘Mike, it’s Sandy.’ Don’t get me wrong…I’m always happy to hear from her. But the old girl keeps much earlier hours than I do.
NJ: What do you talk about?
WV: Oh, the usual stuff. Sometimes I’ll be all ‘Damn, Sandy, I haven’t even started my ConLaw outline yet’, and she’ll be all ‘I don’t want to hear it. I have a campaign finance decision to finish by three, and my back is killing me’, and I’ll be all ‘Whatever, you know your clerks are going to write that shit anyway’ and she’ll be all ‘Damn straight.’ But mostly we just talk about shoes.
NJ: Earlier this week you were named ‘Sexiest One-L Alive’ by Legal Assistant Today. How do you explain that, and were you even aware that there existed a periodical dedicated to issues concerning the paralegal profession?
WV: Well, as you know, I’m from Las Vegas, and every few years the National Federation of Paralegal Associations likes to have their annual convention there. I can only speculate here, but I imagine that one or more ladies from the convention made it down to a performance of the Thunder From Down Under during the weekend. And though I’m not a native Aussie, I’ve been told that I look Australian in a G-string.
NJ: Uh-huh. Well, that’s pretty much everything I’ve got. Is there anything else that you’d like to add?
WV: Just that I’ll be reading excerpts from my forthcoming article, ‘The Rehnquist Court: Could it Whoop the Warren Court’s Ass in a Tug-o-War?’, at the Starbucks on 45th and Lamar, this Wednesday at 9 p.m., if anyone’s interested.1 Thanks.
1Discussion Questions to think about before attending:
a. Would Stevens oppose the war on moral grounds?
b. Would the combined sex appeal of O'Connor and Ginsberg be enough to distract olympian Byron White? And what happens if we consider a pre-Ginsburg bout--does White cancel himself out, or does the younger White have a decided advantage?
c. How important will Clarence Thomas's ambidexterity be?
d. What about Abe Fortas's clubbed foot?