They can join statements respecting en banc decisions, and several of them did. So that’s not the reason. But many senior judges check out of the en banc process, particularly since they don’t get a vote
Many of those 21 judges are inactive, or all but inactive. I don’t fault them for not weighing in, particularly given how rare it is for senior judges to get involved at all in en banc matters (though several did here).
It’s notable that Judge Lee voted *against* en banc review. It’s close to automatic in CA9 that a panel dissenter votes in favor of en banc review, even if no formal en banc call is made. That Lee did not do this suggests he thought the case was particularly unworthy of the full court’s attention
I have never seen anything close to a 29-judge statement from any court. Notable that these were joined by judges appointed by President Trump (and GWB)
To put it more concretely, Apple didn’t roll out a half-assed version of the iPhone that was full of bugs and try to spin it as life-changing. They waited until they had a genuinely impressive product that won people over on its merits, and they’ve dominated ever since
I find it hard to blame people for that, since the AI companies actively oversold their 12-18 month ago products as amazing, when they clearly had obvious flaws. They could have waited until they had a good product, they didn’t, and now they have only themselves to blame for losing the discourse
I learned a new word: “timeously”!
The GOP Senate is not the problem, it’s that he’d need the blue slips of two democratic senators. But still, past presidents have figured this out.
Oh that’s interesting. So hypothetically, if you knew that only one military installation posed any conceivable threat to you (maybe a missile battery), proportionality wouldn’t stop you from taking out other military units far away that posed no threat?
Or would at least violate the principle of proportionality
Interesting. It’s been quite a while since I had occasion to look at the law of war, but my instinct was that if this whole thing is purportedly justified by anticipatory self-defense, striking an unarmed ship that obviously poses no imminent threat wouldn’t be lawful
Isn’t it a war crime because it’s part of a war of aggression?
For sure. They fully deserve all the plaudits. But they were put into that position by the firms that folded. It would have been a totally different landscape if every firm had stood together from the outset. The firms that folded deserve a substantial amount of blame in my opinion.
Yes and no. It didn’t exactly take a SCOTUS clerk to predict that it would turn out like this. And the idea that a firm like Skadden or Paul, Weiss would disintegrate before it happened was always a massive stretch
The real question is why the plaintiffs didn’t seek mandamus
This is nice to see, but she’s also the person who agreed to Columbia’s $200+ million capitulation to Trump. Whatever courage this is came way too late
I guess we now know who wrote the original panel order, which, among other issues, accused the court’s staff of acting illegally and sought to change the Ninth Circuit’s internal operating procedures through a decree by only 3 of its 29 active judges
The America I love is the one that welcomes Arthur Liu - a refugee from communist oppression - and his daughter becomes an Olympic gold medalist! I don't love the America that excludes people like him, or deports them back to their oppressors, as right now with many Cubans, Venezuelans, and others.
This is an important point. I know many lawyers who have no idea how to use CM/ECF because they have staff that can handle filings for them. Staff are great, but you should still know how to file—if only to avoid being hapless when something needs to be filed ASAP and your staff can’t do it
My father and grandparents came here lawfully as refugees. Under this memo, they—and every other refugee in America—would have been subject to mandatory arrest and detention after one year in the country, even if they did nothing wrong. Truly evil stuff
It’s not so different from archery and shooting, which are also Olympic sports
To avoid confusion, I probably should have said (1) and (2) instead of (a) and (b)
But that whole paragraph applies only when there’s PC the person possessing the materials committed a crime? When you look at Section 2000aa as a whole, it sets forth only 2 circumstances when you can search reporters: (a) the reporter committed a crime or (b) it’s necessary to prevent death/injury
But there still needs to be PC of an offense by the person in possession of the materials, which is not what the affidavit here said
As I read it, there’s a 3-step analysis. (1) there must be PC the person possessing the materials committed the offense, (2) even then, a search isn’t allowed if the offense is only receiving, possessing, etc. info, but (3) if it’s classified information, the offense of receiving is enough
But the first sentence of that subsection requires that the person possessing the materials committed the offense, which is not what the affidavit contended.
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t think that’s right? The exception applies if there is PC that *the reporter* committed a crime. But as I read the affidavit, it never contends there is PC the reporter committed a crime. The only crime it discusses is by the alleged leaker
Maybe Italy, but those are two great ones
We’re hiring in LA too!
The Federal Public Defender’s office in the Central District of California (Los Angeles) is hiring an appellate attorney!
We’re also hiring in nearly all of our other units (trial, habeas, non-attorney positions, etc.). I’m biased, but it’s a truly amazing place to work. Come join us!
