|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm confused by this thread commentary; courts have been able to rule on agency administrative actions forever. While the particular suit is ludicrous, the basic grounds and idea of suing over a particular finding (including the approval of individual drugs) isn't new. Has a circuit court ever granted standing over a regulatory approval or denial to a party that neither produced nor consumed the good or service (or a rival good or service) in question? I really doubt it.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Rigel posted:They already can. Not after an election and they still can't with this case, but the state can already cancel an election and just pick electors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:28
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Literally they just ruled that a constitutional right of privacy doesn't exist because of 16th century dudes existing, and that undercuts like half the bill of rights. I agree but the distinction is enumerated powers allocated to the president and congress directly in the text and a right to privacy and liberty read by implication from the content of several statements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:31
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Has a circuit court ever granted standing over a regulatory approval or denial to a party that neither produced nor consumed the good or service (or a rival good or service) in question? I really doubt it. The standing issue's unusual, but that's not what folks were complaining about- it was the idea of overruling individual administrative actions, and yes, courts can do that. Because it's an area I know well, the only case that immediately comes to mind that fits your question is the (equally terribad) ANH v. Sebelius, but there are likely to be others in other sectors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:The federal constitution doesn't bar a state legislature from picking a slate of electors directly, but a state's constitution could. This would be saying that the federal constitution overrules any state restrictions and requires that legislatures be allowed to do federal things without oversight, even if the state constitution says differently. My understanding is that what really absurd about it is that the authority that any state legislature has is only granted it by that state’s constitution. Without the state constitution there is no legislature, it’s just a group of assholes blowing wind. A ruling that says that those assholes aren’t bound by the thing that gives them their fundamental authority is like saying there is a second secret legislature for elections created by the federal constitution that exists separate of the one that can pass laws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 04:39
|
|
|
A few years back this thread pointed me towards Opening Arguments podcast as a source of legal commentary. It was indeed a fine source of legal commentary, and I'm thankful for the recommendation. Fast forward to 2023, with OA imploding over the last few days, I'm looking for a new legal commentary podcast. What is the next best one after Opening Arguments?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
ringu0 posted:A few years back this thread pointed me towards Opening Arguments podcast as a source of legal commentary. It was indeed a fine source of legal commentary, and I'm thankful for the recommendation. What happened with them? It's been awhile since I listened in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:The federal constitution doesn't bar a state legislature from picking a slate of electors directly, but a state's constitution could. This would be saying that the federal constitution overrules any state restrictions and requires that legislatures be allowed to do federal things without oversight, even if the state constitution says differently. Yeah, I'm not really seeing where we disagree. A state (and perhaps soon just the state legislature acting on their own) already can cancel an election and pick the electors. They won't do that however, and once the election is held the recently-passed update to the electoral vote count act will mostly eliminate their ability to say "you know what, gently caress that election, we won't recognize the result".
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
Dameius posted:What happened with them? It's been awhile since I listened in. It just happened so I'm sure there will be more revealed as the drama shakes out, but Andrew (the lawyer) turned out to be a sex pest and this resulted in a falling out with Thomas (the co-host/editor)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
Dameius posted:What happened with them? It's been awhile since I listened in. There's also this discussion in a podcast sub-forum, which I haven't read yet. Shinji2015 posted:For what's it worth, Thomas posted a short,12 minute response with images of text messages on his other podcast, Serious Inquiries Only (CONTENT WARNING): https://seriouspod.com/andrew/
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:It just happened so I'm sure there will be more revealed as the drama shakes out, but Andrew (the lawyer) turned out to be a sex pest and this resulted in a falling out with Thomas (the co-host/editor) Andrew certainly seems to have made some unsolicited (and then unwanted after turned down the first time) passes at a few fans of the show but he doesn't seem to have ever crossed any legal lines. So, not great behavior but he's very publicly apologized and stated he will seek help and counseling so, there is that. Apparently Thomas is gone as Andrew and a new co-host released an episode this morning. Andrew's faced a good deal of public shaming and apparent loss of income (the OA Patreon tanked) over this which seems like a suitable punishment so I am willing to continue listening but maybe not subscribing to Patreon and see if he can make some positive improvements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Andrew certainly seems to have made some unsolicited (and then unwanted after turned down the first time) passes at a few fans of the show but he doesn't seem to have ever crossed any legal lines. You're not correct quote:[...] My chief complaint against Andrew Torrez is that on more than one occasion, he aggressively initiated physical intimacy without my consent. When he did this, I would either say no and try to stop it, or I would let myself be coerced into going along with it. Andrew sucks poo poo, his "apology" was garbage, and immediately locking Thomas out of the podcast and taking it all over also sucks. Don't listen to Opening Arguments anymore
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
Ah well, what a shame. Sucks he turned out to be a piece of poo poo but he apparently is so that's that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:It just happened so I'm sure there will be more revealed as the drama shakes out, but Andrew (the lawyer) turned out to be a sex pest and this resulted in a falling out with Thomas (the co-host/editor) That's putting it extremely mildly. Andrew's initial statement basically admitted to all the allegations, apologized for making anyone feel harassed and said he'd been unhappy in his marriage, and said he'd be stepping away. Thomas released a show last Friday that was apparently in the works recorded with Liz Dye, where he said Andrew would be away for a while. Thomas's lawyers were talking with Andrew's, and apparently both agreed that no one would post any more to the OA Patreon or elsewhere representing the show until they negotiated an amicable way to wind down the 50-50 partnership they owned in OA. Over the weekend Thomas posted that audio clip to his SIO website where he details similarly creepy touching from Andrew (though not to the same degree) when they were drinking at an event in late 2021, which he'd never really processed, and shared texts with his wife from that day about it. Then Monday, Thomas posted two panicked audio files to the RSS feed saying he was being locked out of all the accounts, including financials, and Andrew was stealing everything, and the RSS was the only thing he still had access to. They were both deleted within half an hour. Hours later Andrew posted a fifteen minute "apology", where he attacks Thomas for "outing" him for his drinking problem (???), and accuses him of "outing" their mutual friend in that 12-minute clip (???????), and says he's going to continue the show, to all the OA feeds, including Patreon. And then today he drops a brand new episode with a title about as subtle as If I Did It, co-starring Liz Dye, where she reads a brief statement saying that she won't denigrate women and has always worked to make a better world for their daughters than it was for them.  Then they launch into the first segment covering women's allegations about a sex pest. The temp music and opening clips and audio editing in general are terrible, and oh yeah this LLC that is 50% owned by Thomas is now called Opening Arguments with Andrew and Liz apparently. Morgan Stringer's name is still listed in the credits but she disclaims having had any involvement in the episode and is incredibly angry about this whole situation. I'm sure the fact that she is (or at least was) working for Andrew's law firm doesn't help.Thomas goes into what details he can in his latest post to SIO on seriouspod.com last night. This whole hostile takeover thing is particularly bizarre because Andrew has consistently repeated over the years that the one and only thing that can get a lawyer disbarred is loving around with the money*, and now he's decided to... gently caress around with the money and find out? *Amended after recent events to add being a serial bad faith litigant attempting to carry out an insurrection against the US government apparently also qualifies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
https://www.lawfareblog.com/tagged/podcasts runs a bunch of other poo poo and covers non-scotus law, but the main lawfare blog podcast will usually cover any important scotus stuff it looks like there's also https://www.scotusblog.com/category/scotustalk/ but i haven't listened to them. scotusblog is usually good so i assume their podcast is fine
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
AT just pushed another episode as well (2nd today) presumably so he can ding his Patreon subs before they all unsubscribe. Really not sure how strong arming his partner out of the podcast and then burning it to the ground qualifies as taking time away to deal with his problems. to a decent podcast, I'll need to find something new for law/current event stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:That's putting it extremely mildly. Andrew's initial statement basically admitted to all the allegations, apologized for making anyone feel harassed and said he'd been unhappy in his marriage, and said he'd be stepping away. Thomas released a show last Friday that was apparently in the works recorded with Liz Dye, where he said Andrew would be away for a while. Thomas's lawyers were talking with Andrew's, and apparently both agreed that no one would post any more to the OA Patreon or elsewhere representing the show until they negotiated an amicable way to wind down the 50-50 partnership they owned in OA. Over the weekend Thomas posted that audio clip to his SIO website where he details similarly creepy touching from Andrew (though not to the same degree) when they were drinking at an event in late 2021, which he'd never really processed, and shared texts with his wife from that day about it. The "outing" claim seems to be because in the statement from Thomas he's apparently struggling to reconcile that he has a more physically affectionate relationship (I didn't read it as a sexual one--just physical as in hugs and stuff like that) with this other person and why he felt violated by Andrew in a way he wouldn't have felt in that other relationship and worrying if it meant he was crossing those same boundaries and resolving to talk about it with that friend. Andrew's apology spins this into Thomas saying that he was in a relationship with this other friend and therefore has outed him which is either a wild misunderstanding or a deliberate misrepresentation
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:Andrew's apology spins this into Thomas saying that he was in a relationship with this other friend and therefore has outed him which is either a wild misunderstanding or a deliberate misrepresentation Yeah, it might be a little of both, the whole "Andrew is a Boomer" meme plus given his subsequent actions I can't rule out the latter. It's especially odd because according to people more familiar with the guy in the KF thread, that third party has been very much open about his sexuality in his own podcasts, anyway. Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Feb 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
There’s always ALAB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 07:04
|
|
|
VSOKUL girl posted:https://www.lawfareblog.com/tagged/podcasts runs a bunch of other poo poo and covers non-scotus law, but the main lawfare blog podcast will usually cover any important scotus stuff Thank you for the recommendations, I came in here to ask for the same thing. For further information, AT was also kicked off Allison Gill’s Cleanup on Aisle 45 podcast. Never been a huge fan of her or that podcast, but she keeps releasing episodes and said that that former DOJ lawyer turned talking head Peter Strizock or however you spell his name is going to be her new cohost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
ringu0 posted:A few years back this thread pointed me towards Opening Arguments podcast as a source of legal commentary. It was indeed a fine source of legal commentary, and I'm thankful for the recommendation. My favorite, though is focused on the Supreme Court is Strict Scrutiny which despite now being a crooked media podcast, isn’t lib brained and calls out the disfunction for exactly what it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
I'll second Strict Scrutiny. It's a great SCOTUS focused podcast with good info and entertaining speakers. They tend to go out into other areas of law and need as well, especially reproductive health and other women's centered issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
Not a listener, but I saw the same question asked elsewhere on the web and this was generally considered the best response:quote:
Not vouching for any of them, mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
I’ll add one that’s a little bit different - Ipse Dixit, which is basically a podcast where an interviewer (usually the law prof who started it but occasionally someone else) interviews someone else about something they’ve just written (typically an article they just published, but sometimes other things.). The most recent topics have included IP and Web3, judicial accountability (wrt harassment in particular), and the Kids Online Safety Act being debated in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
Side note, is every podcast 8 minutes of ad read and 6 of tedious self-promotion and shilling for substack/patreon/medium now? It's not like the content is that great either, what I'm hearing is very informal, heavy on banter and light on hard fact or analysis. I get better informed by reading these forums.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 00:07
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:Side note, is every podcast 8 minutes of ad read and 6 of tedious self-promotion and shilling for substack/patreon/medium now? It's not like the content is that great either, what I'm hearing is very informal, heavy on banter and light on hard fact or analysis. I get better informed by reading these forums. Welcome to podcasts in the year of our lord 2023. At least you can skip ahead if you know what to listen for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
uPen posted:AT just pushed another episode as well (2nd today) presumably so he can ding his Patreon subs before they all unsubscribe. Really not sure how strong arming his partner out of the podcast and then burning it to the ground qualifies as taking time away to deal with his problems. yeah if he'd stuck with Plan A then "I have a serious alcohol problem and harass women when I am drunk, which is constantly" is the sort of thing that is fixable with effort and time alas, he has... undercut his apology it's a bummer
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
obviously it's more of a bummer for Thomas and wossername, the lawyer who iirc worked for Andrew's firm before The Events
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:yeah if he'd stuck with Plan A then "I have a serious alcohol problem and harass women when I am drunk, which is constantly" is the sort of thing that is fixable with effort and time I read his written apology and maybe as one would expect from a HLS guy, it read perfectly and seemed like it showed ownership and empathy. The same reaction when he was speaking extemporaneously though gave me the complete opposite reaction
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:Side note, is every podcast 8 minutes of ad read and 6 of tedious self-promotion and shilling for substack/patreon/medium now? It's not like the content is that great either, what I'm hearing is very informal, heavy on banter and light on hard fact or analysis. I get better informed by reading these forums. a lot of the more corpo ones are yeah. i mostly listen to indy and niche academia poo poo that lacks it, or only has ads for smaller related podcasts because they happen to be the preeminent podcast of the vague "we don't know what to call the field anymore, vaguely 'post-soviet' or something" space. stuff that survives off their patreon or is an offshoot of a larger org is generally better than stuff that's a podcast first it is always amusing when the one "in a corpo podcast network, but otherwise extremely obscure" podcast about new books in central asian studies runs ads that are entirely "look, there is literally no targeted advertising in this space, this podcast is de facto an ad for new books itself, but also we need actual ad money so uh... here's an ad for state farm, because at best the only demo we can present to our network is 'our listeners are over 30 and maybe care about insurance because who doesn't'" chum bucket whatever thankfully, the podcast that slowly covers every episode of the sailor moon live action show is bereft of ads for anything other than, well, things that people who listen to that would be interested in, which is to say sailor moon meme merch, which is fairly unobtrusive. most of the field though? yeesh. i also like how https://law.stanford.edu/directory/evelyn-douek/moderated-content/ has only fake ads, because realistically who the hell is buying ad time for the hot "policy academics discussing issues in internet content moderation" market (arguably there are GDPR compliance services and such that would, but aren't)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:Side note, is every podcast 8 minutes of ad read and 6 of tedious self-promotion and shilling for substack/patreon/medium now? It's not like the content is that great either, what I'm hearing is very informal, heavy on banter and light on hard fact or analysis. I get better informed by reading these forums. Lawfare from Brookings institute, mentioned up thread, is pretty good about just hitting you up at the beginning for 30 seconds to subscribe and then getting on with it. Not surprisingly since they are a well funded Washington think tank. They do a lot of policy stuff or other things but they hit the main items pretty well and you generally can’t fault their credentials. Also, don’t know if it was mentioned but Preet Baharas podcast is also a good source for Trump legal analysis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 03:18
|
|
|
apparently the first section 230 petitioner counsel like, entirely failed to prepare for oral argument and flubbed it hardcore https://twitter.com/superwuster/status/1628098372925026305 also lol: https://twitter.com/corbinkbarthold/status/1628049640636440577 https://twitter.com/corbinkbarthold/status/1628063136766136320 SCOTUS 2023: is Louisiana rice pilaf like an ISIS video? ed: other quality bits https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1628056282866262019 https://twitter.com/Bry_Mac/status/1628057623621693441 Qtotonibudinibudet fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Feb 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
The whole posture of the case and factual claims are dubious, even if the plaintiffs survive a Motion to Dismiss. How they can factually show that the hosting of ISIS videos led to their family-member's death? It's is so laughably tenuous, I don't know how they survive a Summary Judgment.
Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Feb 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
SCOTUS 2023: rice pilaf from Louisiana ... is that like an ISIS video?Pook Good Mook posted:The whole posture of the case and factual claims are dubious, even if the plaintiffs survive a Motion to Dismiss. How they can factually show that the hosting of ISIS videos led to their family-member's death? It's is so laughably tenuous, I don't know how they survive a Summary Judgment. Because at the end of the day, the personal opinions of the justices is all that matters and multiple justices have been very open about wanting to see changes to how the internet operates and big tech in particular. Especially with the "Big Tech is silences Conservative voices" garbage from assholes who want to run rampant and force others to listen to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:SCOTUS 2023: rice pilaf from Louisiana ... is that like an ISIS video? No I understand the broader picture reason it's in front of the Supreme Court. I was commenting on how tenuous the case itself is factually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
With the motion seconded, the thread title has been changed. I'd like it on record though that I was quite fond of the old one as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Well this could gently caress the internet up rull good and wacky like
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 07:30
|
|
|
So it sounds like the case isn't likely to gently caress up the internet given how things are going, or is this just a bad run so far?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 13:01
|
|
|
5-4 is the Supreme Court podcast. ALAB and the now-dead Mic Dicta are/were the best law pods. ALAB doesn't do Supreme Court cases but a bunch of episodes do touch on it or focus on people like Katyal who clearly wanted to be on the Court or Kavanaugh and how he got on the Court. Mic Dicta does have a bunch of episodes where they discuss the Court and its goings-on. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Feb 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Archonex posted:So it sounds like the case isn't likely to gently caress up the internet given how things are going, or is this just a bad run so far? the decision may do something significant but it's less likely given the abysmal argument. there is still the other case against twitter though
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 16:59
|
|