Debating this year's Shakespeare Trial
I'm of two minds about this year's Shakespeare trial. Measure for Measure isn't a particular favorite. On the other hand, this is the description:
"The Duke of Vienna entrusted Angelo with the power of his office while he hid among the people to observe how everyone behaved in his absence. Isabella, who suffered greatly under Angelo’s misrule, eventually sued the Duke for myriad abuses, including illegal secret surveillance, false imprisonment, negligent appointment of an unfit deputy, and his disrespect for her commitment to her religious vows. But can the Duke be hauled into court for common law torts, or is the suit barred because most of Isabella’s complaints involve non-justiciable political questions, or because the Duke enjoys qualified immunity from suit for her complaints?"
...and the resolution of that does intrigue me. Inasmuch as I'd be able to understand the legal arguments, which *isn't* much. After all, this topic does not lend to the kind of lowbrow levity that Justice Kagan milked out of the Much Ado trial.
"The Duke of Vienna entrusted Angelo with the power of his office while he hid among the people to observe how everyone behaved in his absence. Isabella, who suffered greatly under Angelo’s misrule, eventually sued the Duke for myriad abuses, including illegal secret surveillance, false imprisonment, negligent appointment of an unfit deputy, and his disrespect for her commitment to her religious vows. But can the Duke be hauled into court for common law torts, or is the suit barred because most of Isabella’s complaints involve non-justiciable political questions, or because the Duke enjoys qualified immunity from suit for her complaints?"
...and the resolution of that does intrigue me. Inasmuch as I'd be able to understand the legal arguments, which *isn't* much. After all, this topic does not lend to the kind of lowbrow levity that Justice Kagan milked out of the Much Ado trial.