Colbert Asked RBG Whether a Hotdog Is a Sandwich. Here's What You Say
"I was told not to ask her about any pending cases before the court—but I just had to press her on one of the most divisive issues facing our country," Stephen Colbert said.
March 22, 2018 at 03:00 PM
4 minute read
“Is a hot dog a sandwich?” Despite thousands of written words on the jurisprudence of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it took just minutes and that single question for “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert on Wednesday night to reveal how the justice's mind works.
Colbert reached out to Ginsburg for an invitation to join her workout in the gym at the Watergate Apartments in Washington. (Ginsburg wasn't Colbert's first chat with a justice. Here are interview clips between Colbert and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.)
Before his hilarious attempts to match the justice's exercises—”Are you juicing?” he asked at one point—Colbert peppered Ginsburg with a few questions.
“I was told not to ask her about any pending cases before the court—but I just had to press her on one of the most divisive issues facing our country,” Colbert said.
Here's the exchange that followed:
Colbert: Is a hot dog a sandwich?
RBG: You're asking me? Well, you tell me what a sandwich is and then I'll tell you if a hot dog is a sandwich.
Colbert: A sandwich is two pieces of bread with almost any type of filling in between, as long as it's not more bread.
RBG: You say two pieces of bread. Does that include a roll that's kind of open but still not completely?
Colbert: That's the crux. You've gotten [it] immediately. See this is why you're on the Supreme Court. That gets immediately to the question: does the roll need to be separated into two parts? Because a sub sandwich—a sub is not split and yet it is a sandwich.
RBG: Yes.
Colbert: So then a hot dog is a sandwich?
RBG: On your definition, yes, it is.
Colbert: Well played, lady justice.
Clearly, the question is not an easy one, and Ginsburg's answer reflected, if not that time-honored doctrine of constitutional avoidance, at least, judicial avoidance.
To assist Colbert in his search for an answer, several veteran Supreme Court advocates offered their best arguments in response to the justice's response.
Vinson & Elkins partner John Elwood
A hot dog must never be called a “sandwich,” lest someone think it is appropriate to put mayonnaise on one.
My more serious answer is that a hot dog is not a sandwich because people would not ordinarily use that word to describe a hot dog. Plus, there is the whole “a bun is not two slices of bread” thing.
Think back to when you were a kid and your mom ran out of buns and had to serve you a hot dog on bread, and she sliced the dog in half so it would fit between the slices and not roll out. That was, admittedly, a sandwich. But it also was an abomination against all that is good, and inferior in every way to a hot dog.
Goldstein & Russell partner Thomas Goldstein
I dissent.
Sidley Austin partner Carter Phillips (sitting in an airport, laughing at the video clip until he had tears in his eyes “and everyone around me thinks I'm nuts”):
Meat between bread clearly is a sandwich. Same rule and result for hamburgers.
Williams & Connolly partner Kannon Shanmugam
I could state my views on that, but I want to retain the ability to represent either side in the inevitable litigation.
Morrison & Foerster partner Joseph Palmore
To be frank, I do not relish the idea of disagreeing with my former boss on such a beefy question. So I won't. Under the definition as served up by Colbert, a hot dog is a sandwich.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllShaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
5 minute readAm Law 100 Partners on Trump’s Short List to Replace Gensler as SEC Chair
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Samsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
- 2How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 4Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
- 5'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250