Objectively intelligent.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

2 more than the city I live in.

On the agenda, bro.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Clinton and Obama were forced to be austere by their Congresses.

I understand that this is an article of faith for you, but that don't make it true.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I understand that this is an article of faith for you, but that don't make it true.

I understand that this is an article of faith for you, but that don't make it true.

[Replaced_Texan]

Do any of ya'll practice in appellate circles?

I was perusing a comment thread over at Lawyers Guns and Money and came across this:

I'm going to say something here, even if I have to talk elliptically so as not to dox myself.

Lisa Blatt's boosterism got a lot of press, but I don't think it is necessarily representative of her corner of the bar. Appellate lawyers aren't running around badmouthing Kavanaugh in public, but I promise you that his elevation dirtied the Court in their eyes in a way that his ideological allies (Alito, Gorsuch, etc.) did not. And that didn't go away. Now, those people having watercooler conversations about how the Court's legitimacy is eroding doesn't stop them going back to their desk and strategizing how to get Kavanaugh's vote on a cert petition they're writing, but culture and perception matter. To the point where, I'm told, Kavanaugh had some very slight trouble filling his law clerk ranks. And his elevation shattered the once-established norm where SCOTUS applicants apply to all the justices; top students refuse to apply to him. For a SCOTUS justice, that's inconceivable. Now, with Barrett on the Court--and given the way she got on the Court--I'd be willing to bet there is a much greater appetite for serious court reform among the careerist class than one might have expected.

Any of this accurate as far as ya'll know?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Do any of ya'll practice in appellate circles?

I was perusing a comment thread over at Lawyers Guns and Money and came across this:



Any of this accurate as far as ya'll know?

If Trump wins, the only vote he’ll need to care about is whether to open the freeze dried chipped beef or canned beans.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

2 more than the city I live in.

It's nice when the C.J. drops by, curious as to his views on court expansion.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Do any of ya'll practice in appellate circles?

I was perusing a comment thread over at Lawyers Guns and Money and came across this:



Any of this accurate as far as ya'll know?

I love appellate work!

But I definitely don't mingle at appellate cocktail parties with Sebby.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Do any of ya'll practice in appellate circles?

I was perusing a comment thread over at Lawyers Guns and Money and came across this:



Any of this accurate as far as ya'll know?

Yes, it fits with what I've heard. Kavanaugh did not have the same jurisprudential cred that Gorsuch, for example, did.

I did not have the impression that top candidates applied to Thomas, because he doesn't seem to get them, but maybe that's because they apply and he picks true believers instead. I have personally known two Thomas clerks who had solid but not outstanding credentials, were right-wing crazies, and who clearly underperformed their credentials in their subsequent careers.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I did not have the impression that top candidates applied to Thomas, because he doesn't seem to get them

Don't people mass apply to all 9? Someone would really turn down a job with one, or not try for a job? Shit, if nothing else you learn how one person thinks in detail, but you also meet the clerks from the other 8 and learn about them too.

edit: My firm has a patent/con law Q heading to the Supremes. Anyone know how Kav-Kav feels about appointments clause challenges?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Don't people mass apply to all 9? Someone would really turn down a job with one, or not try for a job? Shit, if nothing else you learn how one person thinks in detail, but you also meet the clerks from the other 8 and learn about them too.

edit: My firm has a patent/con law Q heading to the Supremes. Anyone know how Kav-Kav feels about appointments clause challenges?

To be fair, Kav really lit up the asbestos ds in Devries, finding a duty in fed cases way beyond most states.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I love appellate work!

But I definitely don't mingle at appellate cocktail parties with Sebby.

You won’t find me with many appellate lawyers. Appealing legal issues is fine. That’s just argument. Appealing fact driven cases or those where evidentiary rulings matter test the limits of the word “tedious.” Reading trial transcripts is a penalty of one of Dante’s rings.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

If Trump wins, the only vote he’ll need to care about is whether to open the freeze dried chipped beef or canned beans.

We in the Lethargic and Corrupt State With No Personality or Economy are starting the fun early, already trashing our biggest city.

Man, when the cold really kicks in and the marginalized folks in the cities who are losing jobs find themselves locked down again and stir crazy, this is going to get seriously ugly. Covid’s timing this year was actually lucky. People looked forward to a spring and summer respite. And the fall has been warm. But as they say in GOT, winter is coming. And with it a flood of foreclosures, evictions, and further flight from northeast cities.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You won’t find me with many appellate lawyers. Appealing legal issues is fine. That’s just argument. Appealing fact driven cases or those where evidentiary rulings matter test the limits of the word “tedious.” Reading trial transcripts is a penalty of one of Dante’s rings.

Why the lawyer who does the dep should do the trial should do the briefs should do the appeal. You don't really have to read anything.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We in the Lethargic and Corrupt State With No Personality or Economy are starting the fun early, already trashing our biggest city.

Man, when the cold really kicks in and the marginalized folks in the cities who are losing jobs find themselves locked down again and stir crazy, this is going to get seriously ugly. Covid’s timing this year was actually lucky. People looked forward to a spring and summer respite. And the fall has been warm. But as they say in GOT, winter is coming. And with it a flood of foreclosures, evictions, and further flight from northeast cities.

If looking at the wildlife is any indication, this is going to be a fucker of a winter. Seriously I saw a squirrel put two peanuts in his mouth and carry two in his little arms. I have a bluejay on my property who eats the almonds I sometimes throw for the squirrels like Joey Chestnut downs hot dogs. He serial-swallowed six in less than two seconds.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

If looking at the wildlife is any indication, this is going to be a fucker of a winter. Seriously I saw a squirrel put two peanuts in his mouth and carry two in his little arms. I have a bluejay on my property who eats the almonds I sometimes throw for the squirrels like Joey Chestnut downs hot dogs. He serial-swallowed six in less than two seconds.

There will be no more lockdowns. Biden will stir a near literal civil war if it is even attempted.

If Trump should somehow win, I can’t fathom a guess at what’ll happen.

The media will blame the social unrest entirely on division allegedly sown by Trump. That’ll be bullshit everyone will see as bullshit. If the Gothams start burning, it’ll be because of economic pressures and the fact that poor people in tightly packed locales will effectively have been imprisoned with no money while being forced to watch their livelihoods vanish.

There is no “lives over economy” argument. Ultimately, you protect both or you protect neither.