|
The Times put out a sturdier conservative leaker theory: that leaking the draft and putting the flying monkeys on notice that they COULD get everything they want and making clear who's to blame if they don't could stiffen the spines of the 5 most plausible voters for a Maximum Alito Hellscape decision against someone like Roberts trying to steer them towards a somewhat saner decision that still overturns Roe. I don't know if I believe it but it's a bit less pure cope.
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
What are your fav parts of the Alito All-In Opinion? How about looking to invalidate Loving lol
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:The Times put out a sturdier conservative leaker theory: that leaking the draft and putting the flying monkeys on notice that they COULD get everything they want and making clear who's to blame if they don't could stiffen the spines of the 5 most plausible voters for a Maximum Alito Hellscape decision against someone like Roberts trying to steer them towards a somewhat saner decision that still overturns Roe. I mean, if it was a liberal expecting this to make dems grow a spine and save Roe, loving lol.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I saw this thread but I don't buy it at all. The theoretical political damage from the leak is being done to conservatives. There is no actual reason to put their win at risk by committing an enormous, career-destroying violation. No way in hell a true believer conservative clerk would taint the process and their own career with their victory at hand. this doesn't make any sense. the political damage from overturning roe is going to happen if they overturn roe. it does make sense to me that this leak is an attempt to make sure that the five votes to overturn roe stay as five votes to overturn roe. you don't need to believe kavenaugh is actually seriously wobbly to worry he might be (that is, after all, what happened with Casey). there's more than just a rogue conservative clerk that could be guilty - ginni thomas is a really good suspect and frankly alito or thomas wouldn't be above doing it themselves (or authorizing their clerk to do it)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
Breyer is the one person with both a clear motive and absolutely nothing to lose. Ginni Thomas would be the comedy option though.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this doesn't make any sense. the political damage from overturning roe is going to happen if they overturn roe. I'm not saying I know who did the leak. I am saying it makes no sense for a conservative SCOTUS clerk to leak this. I don't buy the theory that this forces justices to lock in their vote. Leaking this introduces chaos. The justices involved are all now subject to lobbying and personal attacks and who knows what else. Betting that they will feel obligated to stick to this draft is very risky, particularly if they were to find out that a conservative clerk did the leak. Someone like Ginni would I guess make more sense just because she is a known loose cannon, but unless she is completely brainless she should understand that if the leak is traced to her it would obliterate her husband's reputation and undermine the decision. Also, the political damage from overturning Roe is starting now. People are incredibly pissed as of last night. This whole thing is a huge revelation that massively upsets the political landscape.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
The only thing I'm sure of, is if they overturn Roe, the majority are not all signing onto the same opinion, and definitely not Alito's opinion. Alito's draft opinion is one of the most insanely unhinged things I've ever seen. People are already going to be mad, but Alito's opinion, if it's close to it's current form, is going to be remembered and read forever. I very much expect concurrences in the outcome that are far more mild, even if it's just legacy-saving.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:The only thing I'm sure of, is if they overturn Roe, the majority are not all signing onto the same opinion, and definitely not Alito's opinion. It'll be some 3-2-1-3 thing where Alito's gets 2 or 3 votes, another concurrence upholding MS law and overturning Roe without specifically calling out every right to privacy case in the process getting the other 2 or 3 of the votes to overrule, a lone dissent by Roberts and a dissent by one of the three non-chuds.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It'll be some 3-2-1-3 thing where Alito's gets 2 or 3 votes, another concurrence upholding MS law and overturning Roe without specifically calling out every right to privacy case in the process getting the other 2 or 3 of the votes to overrule, a lone dissent by Roberts and a dissent by one of the three non-chuds. Roberts would uphold the MS law by saying it wasn't an "Undue Burden." Also, I think there will at least be two dissents and they will make great (and depressing) reading.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Roberts would uphold the MS law by saying it wasn't an "Undue Burden." Roberts is a dissent because he won't explicitly overrule Roe, and no matter how many zany versions of it we get, there will be 5 votes for that. I guess I should have called it a one man concurrence in part and dissent in part. I think the best outcome is a shitshow with no clear majority so precedent is limited as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It'll be some 3-2-1-3 thing where Alito's gets 2 or 3 votes, another concurrence upholding MS law and overturning Roe without specifically calling out every right to privacy case in the process getting the other 2 or 3 of the votes to overrule, a lone dissent by Roberts and a dissent by one of the three non-chuds. Carving up a definitive, landmark ruling that will heavily impact the public into a series of bewildering, conflicting chunks is such a terrible result that I'm almost certain that's how it will go.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
In 2022, we're all Marks-ists.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Carving up a definitive, landmark ruling that will heavily impact the public into a series of bewildering, conflicting chunks is such a terrible result that I'm almost certain that's how it will go. Gonna go the other way. We have five gimlet eyed stone cold psycho theocrats gonna make the worst ruling in a hundred years. Mark it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
The medmal defense review I agreed to do went pretty well. I feel like I remember reading about some website/directory where you can pay $500 or something to be listed for cases related to your specialty. Am I misremembering that?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Ask the attorney who hired you for tips to get set up for a business lunch with a partner at a local insurance defense firm and ask them where their client insurance companies get their experts
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:The medmal defense review I agreed to do went pretty well. I feel like I remember reading about some website/directory where you can pay $500 or something to be listed for cases related to your specialty. Am I misremembering that? If your client believes it went as well as you do, I guarantee you’ll get more work from them and they’ll refer other people to you too.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:Ask the attorney who hired you for tips to get set up for a business lunch with a partner at a local insurance defense firm and ask them where their client insurance companies get their experts Phil Moscowitz posted:If your client believes it went as well as you do, I guarantee you’ll get more work from them and they’ll refer other people to you too. Thanks guys. This was from across the country/kind of a niche case but I'll reach out to the attorney to see if he has any suggestions. Thanks again!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
In case anyone wants to take him up on it, Orin Kerr's indicating on Twitter that he thinks Alito's "our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right" disclaimer and associated reasoning is genuine, and in response to comments indicated he'd be willing to put money on it. https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1521995286125727744 https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1522072912752222211 eviltastic fucked around with this message at 20:06 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Mmm that's summa that sweet pure ivory tower copium.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
That's pure loving lunacy. First, Alito, and everyone else who signed off on the draft, told the Senate under oath that Roe was settled law. So don't ever trust a single thing they ever say. (I mean, we all knew it was bullshit at the time, but at least there was plausible deniability). Second, Alito thought Obergefell was wrongly decided at the time, he wrote a loving dissent. He doesn't think it came out right the first time. Third, one of Alito's justifications is that old America would never consider abortion a right, and it takes no effort to extend that to gay marriage or contraception. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 20:32 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
he'd just try to rule lawyers his way out of paying the bet if he lost
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Third, one of Alito's justifications is that old America would never consider abortion a right, and it takes no effort to extend that to gay marriage or contraception. He literally said anything not established in at least some states as a constitutional right by 1950 doesn’t exist, so yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:In case anyone wants to take him up on it, Orin Kerr's indicating on Twitter that he thinks Alito's "our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right" disclaimer and associated reasoning is genuine, and in response to comments indicated he'd be willing to put money on it. The rationale is completely identical to Griswold!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:That's pure loving lunacy. Well, it was settled law wasn't it? Thry didn't promise under oath that they wouldn't unsettle it later. You know, the Darth Vader school of jurisprudence for Accomplished Shitstains.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:In case anyone wants to take him up on it, Orin Kerr's indicating on Twitter that he thinks Alito's "our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right" disclaimer and associated reasoning is genuine, and in response to comments indicated he'd be willing to put money on it. Well that's what they said about Bush v. Gore
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
ulmont posted:He literally said anything not established in at least some states as a constitutional right by 1950 doesn’t exist, so yeah. The comical twist, of course, being that this "Deeply rooted in history" standard is . . . brand spanking new, literally born yesterday, like anyone who falls for it
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The comical twist, of course, being that this "Deeply rooted in history" standard is . . . brand spanking new, literally born yesterday, like anyone who falls for it Sir! Are you suggesting that originalism is a made-up, nonsense doctrine that was primarily created to attempt to destroy the Great Society reforms of the 60's through a veneer of legitimacy?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:In case anyone wants to take him up on it, Orin Kerr's indicating on Twitter that he thinks Alito's "our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right" disclaimer and associated reasoning is genuine, and in response to comments indicated he'd be willing to put money on it. I mean, Alito and Thomas would happily overrule Obergefell - Alito wrote a whole opinion about it that Thomas signed onto. But I wouldn't be surprised if one of Gorsuch/Kav/Barrett isn't on board and Alito wrote that paragraph in exchange for a vote while muttering "ugh, fine" under his breath the whole time.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Another thread success story Not to derail this uplifting constitutional discussion, but I do not post on Reddit, so here is a Saturday tl:dr. A while ago (September) I was "another thread success story." Success continues. About 7 months ago a recruiter reached out to me on LinkedIn. I had a newborn, and was working at a very collaborative 11 attorney firm that took "anything that comes in the door." Was interesting work, but some things caused me a lot of anxiety. I used some of the skills I developed and took a job at a 70 attorney firm doing full corporate practice. Prior firm was sad to see me go, gave me a nice cupcake ceremony and said the door was open. Midsize firm seemed ok, but there were some issues. When I accepted the position I was not aware that the firm had experienced significant associate turnover in their corporate department (they all left), and I was one of four new corporate associates. People were not as accessible or helpful. Attorneys did not spend much time speaking with one another. Further, one of the people I worked under was entirely remote for 4 months, and said to me on more than one occasion that the firm only hired me because they were too cheap to hire a more experienced corporate attorney. I worked on the relationship, and it seemed good, we had a overall good conversation a few days ago in his office. Billable hours slid in the last month and a half, despite making a real effort to bring them up. Near the end of the day Friday the two shareholders I work under presented me with a separation agreement (I have until the second week in June). One of them (see above) said "I'm impressed you handled this with class" when I did not break down. Not that anyone here cares, but this kind of sucks. Spouse is not thrilled (we have two young children and are going on a vacation during the last week of my "employment") that I am undoubtedly going to take a significant paycut. But, as they say, onward and upward. Exodus1984 fucked around with this message at 11:33 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 11:23
|
|
|
I’m sorry, that really sucks. You’ll land on your feet and it sounds like that wasn’t a good permanent place anyway. Hopefully you got some good experience that you can parlay into something. Can you go back to the smaller firm?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I’m sorry, that really sucks. You’ll land on your feet and it sounds like that wasn’t a good permanent place anyway. Hopefully you got some good experience that you can parlay into something. Can you go back to the smaller firm?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Long term sounds like the new firm did you a favor.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
Exodus1984 posted:Not to derail this uplifting constitutional discussion, but I do not post on Reddit, so here is a Saturday tl:dr. A while ago (September) I was "another thread success story." Success continues. If you want to continue down the path of being a corporate attorney (extra dollars for extra suffering) you could get in contact with some recruiters and look for interviews. The recruiters are always looking for more bodies for the 2100 billable hour meatgrinder, and your experience is probably enough to get your foot back in the door in an entry-level role at a bigger firm. I would also be sure to talk to an associate or two at any other firm you may consider heading to. They're more likely to be honest about the reality of the firm's conditions.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I would also be sure to talk to an associate or two at any other firm you may consider heading to. They're more likely to be honest about the reality of the firm's conditions. Very true. If possible set up doing this after you get any offer. No firm will reject you for, after offering you, asking "hey can you set up a quick call with someone in [group you'd be in] specifically," unless you've already talked to all of them during the process. And then you can have the one on one with them and say "so they've offered me already, what's your day to day really like."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
https://www.twitter.com/prof_jpc/status/1527003339644362756 *serenely* lol man who knew ending the administrative state was this easy. you just say "you can't, actually," and apparently that might be all it takes.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
Valentin posted:https://www.twitter.com/prof_jpc/status/1527003339644362756 You might be overreading this decision. The idea that administrative agencies have to go to a jury trial when they’re imposing legal penalties (distinct from when they’re imposing an equitable remedy like disgorgement or injunctive relief) has been there for 35 years, and was close to unanimous when decided. It might not extend to requiring a jury trial when not already in a district court, but it’s not crazy. (E: the rest of it, on removal protections and delegation, is wrong and bad but also not the sort of wrong and bad likely to be approved by SCOTUS given recent cases like Arthrex.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 02:48 on May 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
Abolish juries for everything other than criminal prosecutions.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
Dear Diary, I never thought this would happen to me. I’m going back to BigLaw, but in a back office role. Looking forward to ranking slightly below a first-year’s fraction of a secretary.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
Calling all feckless fed soc toadies! Your ship has come in! https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Calling all feckless fed soc toadies! Your ship has come in! i don't think he'd be a worse client than trump but i did have to think hard about it
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 22:30
|
|