Count me as 'uncommitted' too, not for the Israel War but because Biden and his wokey staff members don't support women's rights to their own sports teams or private places where they're vulnerable to male predations. They're no more feminist than the Republicans.
Concerning social media, this case will have far-reaching ramifications. Ultimately, one thing that could be done to reign in some of the radical and false statements would be to require people to post under their actual names. I believe much of the vitriol is out there because people can hide their identities. That's obviously not the case in these cases, but it is something to consider.
Three points delta in "other' vs Obama reelection in Michigan is actually huge. It is a swing state. Biden (or whoever pulls the strings) will cave, mark my words. A win for Hamasniks.
The safety argument for driverless vehicles is a smokescreen. Travis Kalanick said that the only way Uber could make money was by getting rid of the labor costs associated with human drivers. Don't fall for this shameless effort at virtue signaling.
Another day, another Oliver Wiseman substack. The Ten Stories We're Reading list looks like a copy of a column from The Drudge Report. Maybe Bari Weiss thinks a montage of New York Times oriented articles presented in the Drudge Report headline format is the way to go. Let's see how that works out.
Did you know that the USSC justices are (1) not obligated to consider the contents of an amicus brief for making their decision, and (2) not obligated to even read an amicus brief? I found that out while following the docket filings in Trump v Anderson. I had assumed that they had their army of law clerks reading all those briefs (so many!), but no, if the brief writer(s) is someone they know, or takes a position that catches their eye, then maybe they read the brief, and maybe they consider it, otherwise it’s just 30 pages of digital paper piling up on the docket that nobody looks at. And the privilege of filing an amicus brief will cost you an average of $50k a pop. Considering Mamet is not a big name in the legal arena, chances are good that none of the nine will even glance at what he filed, much less actually read it.
As a lawyer of nearly 40 years standing, yes I am aware of that. I handled (though not on brief or argued) several cases that went to the S.Ct. Just managed the argument being prepared for them, all for my client. Saw lots and lots of amicus briefs and even worked to develop some as well.
Hell, I'm not sure how deeply the Justices even read the parties' submissions in full. They've got a gaggle of clerks who read and "case note" the parties' stuff. Case notes are what we did in law school to get the salient points out of a case in the "case book". And learn to read cases - that's the bulwark of common law decision making.
No, David Mamet's is not a name in legal circles. But his is a fairly well known name. Lots of writing as his brief points out. I am certain that some clerk will know his name and some Justices, too. He is enough of an oddity as an amicus (compared the usual law professors and lobbying associations that comprise the normal groups of amici) that one or more clerks/Justices might take a peek. It is a brief tale so might just tempt some to read. I hope so at least.
N.B. Check out Mamet's attorneys on the brief. An interesting group that litigates in defense of Jews and Israelis. Mamet is a Jew, but this issue only tangentially touches antisemitism. Pretty damn good lawyers.
Thanks for the reply, very informative. I, too, am an attorney, as is my husband, though neither of us has any USSC experience. Right out of law school in 1977, I clerked for a federal district court judge, and then with a law firm where I started out doing insurance defense litigation, but I eventually switched sections and practiced probate law. My husband started out in admiralty litigation, but later switched law firms and specialized in municipal finance. Neither of us was really suited to litigation personality wise.
Nevertheless, I have followed the USSC off and on over the years, and paid close attention recently to the Anderson v Griswold case, including Trump’s appeal. I read the Colorado district court decision, the Colorado Supreme Court decision, all of the litigants filings before the USSC, and almost all of the amicus briefs (near the end they just become either repetitive or silly). I have a feeling that you and I would reach different conclusions on how Trump v Anderson should be decided (and I have read most of the law review articles cited here and there in all of this), but I never expected, while listening to the oral arguments, to get the distinct impression that the justices were going to (and they still may not) just punt and refuse to decide this case on the merits. The briefs, and the amici, were compelling imho, so I researched how much weight the justices tended to give to those filings, and discovered that beyond what was filed by the litigants, the answer was usually no weight at all, even to the extent of ignoring the amici altogether.
The history of this practice seems to be that back in the day, the Court did not allow the filing of amicus briefs to the extent they now do. When there were fewer amicus briefs, the justices paid more attention to them. Now that there may be as many as 40 or 50 of them, almost none of them get more than a cursory glance. Some of the amicus briefs in support of affirming the Colorado Supreme Court are written by the foremost experts in the field. Yet in the oral arguments the justices seemed (1) to be angry that they had been put in the position of having to decide the merits, and (2) clearly were looking for a way to avoid doing just that.
What they seemed to be thinking was something along the lines of (1) the states can’t decide insurrection disqualification, (2) Congress has to provide a federal procedure to decide insurrection disqualification, (3) there used to be such a federal procedure but Congress got rid of it in the 1940’s, so (4) there is currently NO procedure for deciding insurrection disqualification, therefore (5) NO ONE can decide insurrection disqualification.
From what I read in the various briefs, such a conclusion is absurd in the extreme. It would be basically a dereliction of duty for the USSC to toss this case and leave the country with NO ANSWER on whether or not Trump was/is an oath breaking insurrectionist, heading into what may be the most important presidential election we’ve ever had. But it seems more and more to me that’s exactly what the justices are going to do. Sotomayor may dissent, but she’ll be the only one.
Now they’ve got the presidential immunity question before them and are going to wait two months to hear oral arguments, probably not issue a decision until June, and maybe allow a trial that won’t take place until right before the election in November, if then. The nine of them are beginning to look like cowards, and I never thought I’d see the day, but here we are.
Freedom of speech should extend the right to hear speech. I can understand not being forced to listen, but to take someone's ability to speak or to hear is just as egregious. And, many of these violent protesters know they won't be expelled. It would take one expulsion round to stop this violence. One.
I find it interesting that, when Jewish students are threatened by violent rioters, they're protected by the police. But when women speaking about women's rights are threatened by violent rioters, the police refuse to intervene until a woman is physically injured.
Maybe now Americans will wake up to the entitled male violence we've allowed loose in our streets masquerading as "political activism."
I guess it is too late for Larry to donate as kidney to Richard. LOL.. what a wonderful show with so many wonderful characters. Ricard lewis was one of the best of the best
Richard Lewis, RIP: I was watching reruns of "Curb" when my phone flashed an update announcing his death. He and Larry would yell and scream at each other on the screen while you could see both of them were going to burst out in laughter as soon as the director yelled "Cut". Damn it, Richard will be missed.
Count me as 'uncommitted' too, not for the Israel War but because Biden and his wokey staff members don't support women's rights to their own sports teams or private places where they're vulnerable to male predations. They're no more feminist than the Republicans.
Concerning social media, this case will have far-reaching ramifications. Ultimately, one thing that could be done to reign in some of the radical and false statements would be to require people to post under their actual names. I believe much of the vitriol is out there because people can hide their identities. That's obviously not the case in these cases, but it is something to consider.
Three points delta in "other' vs Obama reelection in Michigan is actually huge. It is a swing state. Biden (or whoever pulls the strings) will cave, mark my words. A win for Hamasniks.
“Why do 80% of women want to have the opportunity to kill their kids?” THAT is grim, as well as blatantly disingenuous.
“…at least there is a recognition that these are babies.” They are “babies” once they are forced to be born.
Many societies have outlawed abortion. There is ample evidence of the horrors that occur when abortion is illegal.
The safety argument for driverless vehicles is a smokescreen. Travis Kalanick said that the only way Uber could make money was by getting rid of the labor costs associated with human drivers. Don't fall for this shameless effort at virtue signaling.
Here for all the "Qatar is Hamas and wants to destroy America" hot takes from all The Free Press discussion board members :)
Another day, another Oliver Wiseman substack. The Ten Stories We're Reading list looks like a copy of a column from The Drudge Report. Maybe Bari Weiss thinks a montage of New York Times oriented articles presented in the Drudge Report headline format is the way to go. Let's see how that works out.
Yay Texas A&M. The Qataris are not America's friend. Cancel islamist students' visas. Expel islamist students from the U.S.
David Mamet's "metaphorical short story" is outstanding. Let's hope some of the kn ee-jerking Justices read it and understand it.
Did you know that the USSC justices are (1) not obligated to consider the contents of an amicus brief for making their decision, and (2) not obligated to even read an amicus brief? I found that out while following the docket filings in Trump v Anderson. I had assumed that they had their army of law clerks reading all those briefs (so many!), but no, if the brief writer(s) is someone they know, or takes a position that catches their eye, then maybe they read the brief, and maybe they consider it, otherwise it’s just 30 pages of digital paper piling up on the docket that nobody looks at. And the privilege of filing an amicus brief will cost you an average of $50k a pop. Considering Mamet is not a big name in the legal arena, chances are good that none of the nine will even glance at what he filed, much less actually read it.
As a lawyer of nearly 40 years standing, yes I am aware of that. I handled (though not on brief or argued) several cases that went to the S.Ct. Just managed the argument being prepared for them, all for my client. Saw lots and lots of amicus briefs and even worked to develop some as well.
Hell, I'm not sure how deeply the Justices even read the parties' submissions in full. They've got a gaggle of clerks who read and "case note" the parties' stuff. Case notes are what we did in law school to get the salient points out of a case in the "case book". And learn to read cases - that's the bulwark of common law decision making.
No, David Mamet's is not a name in legal circles. But his is a fairly well known name. Lots of writing as his brief points out. I am certain that some clerk will know his name and some Justices, too. He is enough of an oddity as an amicus (compared the usual law professors and lobbying associations that comprise the normal groups of amici) that one or more clerks/Justices might take a peek. It is a brief tale so might just tempt some to read. I hope so at least.
N.B. Check out Mamet's attorneys on the brief. An interesting group that litigates in defense of Jews and Israelis. Mamet is a Jew, but this issue only tangentially touches antisemitism. Pretty damn good lawyers.
Thanks for the reply, very informative. I, too, am an attorney, as is my husband, though neither of us has any USSC experience. Right out of law school in 1977, I clerked for a federal district court judge, and then with a law firm where I started out doing insurance defense litigation, but I eventually switched sections and practiced probate law. My husband started out in admiralty litigation, but later switched law firms and specialized in municipal finance. Neither of us was really suited to litigation personality wise.
Nevertheless, I have followed the USSC off and on over the years, and paid close attention recently to the Anderson v Griswold case, including Trump’s appeal. I read the Colorado district court decision, the Colorado Supreme Court decision, all of the litigants filings before the USSC, and almost all of the amicus briefs (near the end they just become either repetitive or silly). I have a feeling that you and I would reach different conclusions on how Trump v Anderson should be decided (and I have read most of the law review articles cited here and there in all of this), but I never expected, while listening to the oral arguments, to get the distinct impression that the justices were going to (and they still may not) just punt and refuse to decide this case on the merits. The briefs, and the amici, were compelling imho, so I researched how much weight the justices tended to give to those filings, and discovered that beyond what was filed by the litigants, the answer was usually no weight at all, even to the extent of ignoring the amici altogether.
The history of this practice seems to be that back in the day, the Court did not allow the filing of amicus briefs to the extent they now do. When there were fewer amicus briefs, the justices paid more attention to them. Now that there may be as many as 40 or 50 of them, almost none of them get more than a cursory glance. Some of the amicus briefs in support of affirming the Colorado Supreme Court are written by the foremost experts in the field. Yet in the oral arguments the justices seemed (1) to be angry that they had been put in the position of having to decide the merits, and (2) clearly were looking for a way to avoid doing just that.
What they seemed to be thinking was something along the lines of (1) the states can’t decide insurrection disqualification, (2) Congress has to provide a federal procedure to decide insurrection disqualification, (3) there used to be such a federal procedure but Congress got rid of it in the 1940’s, so (4) there is currently NO procedure for deciding insurrection disqualification, therefore (5) NO ONE can decide insurrection disqualification.
From what I read in the various briefs, such a conclusion is absurd in the extreme. It would be basically a dereliction of duty for the USSC to toss this case and leave the country with NO ANSWER on whether or not Trump was/is an oath breaking insurrectionist, heading into what may be the most important presidential election we’ve ever had. But it seems more and more to me that’s exactly what the justices are going to do. Sotomayor may dissent, but she’ll be the only one.
Now they’ve got the presidential immunity question before them and are going to wait two months to hear oral arguments, probably not issue a decision until June, and maybe allow a trial that won’t take place until right before the election in November, if then. The nine of them are beginning to look like cowards, and I never thought I’d see the day, but here we are.
Just gotta put out the right bait.... ;)
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-releases-footage-of-crowds-rushing-aid-trucks-in-gaza-city-hamas-claims-104-killed/
Freedom of speech should extend the right to hear speech. I can understand not being forced to listen, but to take someone's ability to speak or to hear is just as egregious. And, many of these violent protesters know they won't be expelled. It would take one expulsion round to stop this violence. One.
I find it interesting that, when Jewish students are threatened by violent rioters, they're protected by the police. But when women speaking about women's rights are threatened by violent rioters, the police refuse to intervene until a woman is physically injured.
Maybe now Americans will wake up to the entitled male violence we've allowed loose in our streets masquerading as "political activism."
Stop running away. Stand and fight. You don't appease a bully by running away. You punch him in the fucking nose
I guess it is too late for Larry to donate as kidney to Richard. LOL.. what a wonderful show with so many wonderful characters. Ricard lewis was one of the best of the best
Richard Lewis, RIP: I was watching reruns of "Curb" when my phone flashed an update announcing his death. He and Larry would yell and scream at each other on the screen while you could see both of them were going to burst out in laughter as soon as the director yelled "Cut". Damn it, Richard will be missed.
UCLA would have had the same problem as Berkeley, but it self-censored an event by putting it online at the last minute after threats: https://www.instagram.com/p/C3ygNJSvTHe/ rather than in-person as originally planned: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-789482