Ron Fisher

Leo: literally quotes Christ telling us to care for the foreigner

The Economist: wHy HaVe you SuDeNnLy MoVeD lEfT?

🙄

My alternate law professor life is writing articles on explaining that unpublished opinions are due process and/or equal protection violations.

Also, I’m sure (hope) someone is already doing this

Is there any reason for states to not to disband their national guard units? Is there anything that they do that couldn’t be accomplished through state troopers/CHP, which are not subject to federal takeover as far as I know?

I like Chief Justice + 8 rotating COA judges sit by designation. And we assign the other justices to a circuit.

COA judges know how to respect what prior panels did because they know it’s chaos otherwise. It’s the generational occupation of SCOTUS by an anti democratic handful that’s oppressive.

Only the chief justice is named in the constitution….

Sad but true

100%, but if not here what’s the cause of action for?

This the rare case where a subsequent malicious prosecution suit feels like it might actually have legs.

Also — lol @ Columbia. Licking boots gets you nothing but more boot licking

Cheers to the University of California, which did not bow or kowtow to the government’s illegal withholding of funds. The UC system deserves to count the first and second ranked public universities (Cal and UCLA) among its institutions.

And I am an alum of the University of Virginia.

Also felt in Noe Valley.

Fabulous. Glad Steve—who is steeped in this world and knows what he’s talking about (unlike me, who is just spitballing on the net)—has written about this idea. Thanks and looking forward to reading!

To be clear, I understand they’ve done it for a long time. But I wonder whether it’s ever been directly challenged, and if not, whether this might provide a path for de novo reconsideration by a differently constituted SCOTUS in the future, allowing it to formally avoid of state decisis.

I’m not a SCOTUS practitioner, but: Are we sure certiorari before judgment is even constitutional? Doesn’t Art. III only grant SCOTUS original jurisdiction in extremely limited cases?

Isn’t the better move to remove their shadow docket jurisdiction? Art. III expressly says that SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction. Restrict it tightly to appellate jurisdiction and strip appellate review of preliminary injunctions.

Are you before Cowan?

Lord help you if the family ends up at a U-pick berry farm. Hope you needed 20 pounds of berries at $500 a pound!

Happy to chat.

It’s a podcast microphone that says “AudioPro”

No need for name brand audio equipment for this use IMO. I usually have just ordered whatever is for sale online for around $100 and haven’t been picky about brands. This is the one I have now, and it works really well.

The bonus is that Zoom favors podcast mikes whenever there is cross talk because they are clearer, so you also get a better record.

I would never be that unprofessional, but this is why I use a podcast mike with a mute button that glows blue if I am live and red if I am not. I don’t rely on Zoom’s mute function.

Thanks Adam. Just DMed you.

Trademarks don’t prevent Congress from using a name for a bill.

Ronald Fisher | Civil & Probate Litigation Ronald Fisher is an attorney at Sideman & Bancroft in San Francisco. He specializes in complex civil and probate litigation.

I’m a lawyer and part of a team that enjoined Trump 1 admin from targeting journalists like this in Portland. See Index Newspapers v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 977 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2020). I’m happy to chat if helpful. www.sideman.com/professional...

This will go under appreciated. Dark but bravo

Scam?! These are the same tactics that drove Twitter’s and Tesla’s valuations deeply down. Promises made, promises kept.

/yesitseffingsarcasm

Because it’s harder to other disfavored minorities if they are allowed to be heroes

Tortious interference in *an election* is not a thing. Least of all via speech.

Tortious interference in *an election* is not a thing. Least of all via speech.