Quote:
|
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery has spoken. The Texas judge issued a ruling in the case he called "The Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Bikini Top v. the (More) Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Pastie." |
Quote:
|
The 29-page document starts off with a bang. "An ordinance dealing with semi-nude dancers has once again fallen into the city's lap," he writes. He continues: The City of San Antonio ("City") wants exotic dancers employed by Plantiffs to wear larger pieces of fabric to cover more of the female breast. Thus, the age old question before the Court, now with constitutional implications, is: Does size matter? |
Quote:
|
Some of the judge's best "That's what she said!" lines... Plaintiffs clothe themselves in the First Amendment seeking to provide cover against another alleged naked grab of unconstitutional power. Plaintiffs, and by extension their customers, seek an erection of a constitutional wall separating themselves from the regulatory power of City government. While the Court has not received amicus curiae briefs, the Court has been blessed with volunteers known in South Texas as 'curious amigos' to be inspectors general to perform on sight visits at the locations in question. To bare, or not to bare, that is the question. While the Court finds these businesses to be nefarious magnets of mischief, the Court doubts several square inches of fabric will stanch the flow of violence and other secondary effects emanating from these businesses. The judge's conclusion is the stuff of legend. Here it is, in all its glory: Accordingly, the request for preliminary injunction is DENIED. Should the parties choose to string this case out to trial on the merits, the Court encourages reasonable discovery intercourse as they navigate the peaks and valleys of litigation, perhaps to reach a happy ending. It is so ORDERED. |
This is the kind of stuff private clients pay me a pretty penny for, but this joker is doing in on the taxpayer dime. Discusst.
