Harsh Sancheti

There is a killer argument that settles this debate and it is this: Neal Katyal is not a very good SC advocate and is unworthy of the credit he is being given.

There are cases where quality of advocacy is outcome-determinative, this was not one of them.

Backstory: the cruelty of U.S high schools aimed at a 9 y.o., and turned into a badge of defiance.

The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach Abstract. The international law on the use of force is one of the oldest branches of international law. It is an area twinned with the emergence of interna

Yes, even reading 83 & 84 together for all they are worth it wouldn’t fly today.

Not that you need magic words, necessarily, but intratextually “recommendations” seems a lesser remedy than “measures”/authorizations under Ch. VII.

Good discussion in Ch 3.3: academic.oup.com/oxford-law-p...

Many such realizations after Venezuela and Carney’s Davos speech.

Resolution 84 does the trick, no?

documents.un.org/doc/resoluti...

I’m feeling inspired to write a poem about a falcon. Not daylight’s dauphin, not…

Giant unwieldy strategies can pay off…in giant unwieldy cases or cause advocacy.

One just needs to crowdfund a project like this.

I’ve always wondered at the deliberate vagueness of these claims. Defend against whom or what?

The Red Army is not marching through Europe. We have a nuclear deterrent and a military.

Maybe the realm who saw off the Spanish Armada, Napoleon and Hitler can actually look out for itself?

LOL. That this tweet can now apply to more than one British princeling is just 🧑‍🍳 💋

What’s your favorite dish?

Paleontology please.

Will, you marry (are truly) me is what the Earl of Oxford said when he handed over a sheaf of his plays to an actor from Stratford-upon-Avon.

So what you are saying is there’s a chance?

Kickstart a new WTO round in a post-Trump world…

True but great lawyering is also about identifying and mitigating risks.

There are very few cases where rolling the dice is worth it rather than a (messy) compromise.

To be more precise, he sucks because:

1. He has no principles and just does whatever the RW legal movement demands of him.

2. He can’t see around corners which is how he got himself into this jam.

It’s our fate to be ruled by mediocre hacks.

He changed his mind because it’s ridiculous to hold that taking race into account for 4th amendment purposes is A-OK but constitutionally problematic for VRA purposes as he intends to hold in Callais.

The pressure campaign has embarrassed him, yes, but also he just sucks as a jurist.

Translation: I’m tired of Uber-driving.

After 250 years we finally achieved angelic government.

You thought condensed too?

3d would UPL + attempt to circumvent fiduciary duties owed by attorneys to clients.

4th would be to investigate possible violation under champerty statutes/case-law.

Probably more + kitchen sink you can throw at them.

Sounds like probably some light fraud/misreps needed to get ppl to assign.

That term + overall pic makes it sound like a contract of adhesion.

That’s 1st line of attack.

2nd would be equitable interest remains with assignor until/if consideration moves.

There might also be formality problems with assignment depending on state laws.

3. Is assignment rescindable by either party? Might make a significant difference.

Whether UPL or no, seems dodgy as hell. What’s the goal here - resist enforcement?

I’m still hung up on your first sentence. 3 ways to analyze:

1. This is a sham assignment b/c unsupported by consideration or discretionary consideration (depends on K specifics).

2. Not a valid/complete transfer of debt because equitable or other interest remains with assignor.

Stealing jokes from Fackham Hall, tsk tsk.

Triathletes get their hands on Santa.

Anonymous speech is the only fair example, and that was one opinion.

There are many claims that Scalia recanted his support for Chevron. Not adjudicating them, or making a methodological claim, but you and I both know they exist.

ED v. Smith survived precisely because it was Scalia’s opinion.

To be fair, he is making a point about the competitiveness of the UK vis-a-vis other countries.

He is wrong, but let’s represent his views accurately before we reject it.

That’s not even close to an accurate description of what the Court is doing.

Questioning the rightness of Scalia’s views has become inconceivable for the Trump 3. (except, possibly, and only implicitly Gorsuch on Indian law).

Which Scalia decision have they rejected?

The weirdness is not Taft but Scalia.

The Court has reached a weird place where Scalia dissents are given greater weight than its own precedents.

Has the Court consciously departed from Scalia’s views on an open issue once the Trump 3 took the bench?

Also, relatedly, Pluribus is obviously about God.