Silly trials beg for funny opinions. In Husain v Springer, Dennis G Jacobs, chief judge of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, obliges. (PDF link, see pp. 45-48.) Extracts:

… I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion. So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it. I suppose this is unusual, so I explain why. …this is not a case that should occupy the mind of a person who has anything consequential to do.
…
This is a case about nothing. Injunctive relief from the school’s election rules is now moot (if it was ever viable); and plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at oral argument that the only relief sought in this litigation is nominal damages. Now, after years of litigation over two dollars, the majority will impose on a busy judge to conduct a trial on this silly thing, and require a panel of jurors to set aside their more important duties of family and business in order to decide it.
…
Contrary to the impression created by the majority’s lengthy formal opinion, this case is not a cause célèbre; it is a slow-motion tantrum by children spending their graduate years trying to humiliate the school that conferred on them a costly education from which they evidently derived small benefit. A selection from the illiterate piffle in the disputed issue of the College Voice is set out in the margin for the reader’s fun.
…
If this case ends with a verdict for plaintiffs (anything is possible with a jury), the district court will have the opportunity to consider whether the exercise merits an award of attorneys’ fees in excess of one-third of two dollars.

Interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal, by libertarian lawyer Randy Barnett, about the anti-war stance of internet-darling Ron Paul. Of the libertarian contender for the Republican nomination, he asks:

While the number of Americans who self-identify as “libertarian” remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres–what is sometimes called “economic conservatism” and “social liberalism.” But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.
…
This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is “no.”

It describes rather well my own views on the war in Iraq.