Jeff Dubner

GoFundMech

Tár and Past Lives are the runaway leaders for me. Have yet to see OBAA.

Just what you want from a spreadsheet: 57.2% accuracy

Winning VBWA will forever be my greatest (only?) LL achievement

learnedleague.com/question.php...

And oh my god, that was 48 seasons ago

Parrot and Olivier in America isn’t my favorite Peter Carey, but I often think about chapter describing the experience of being exiled to Australia as a convict

Been saving it until after an oral argument tomorrow. Should I be hyped or HYPED?

The Contemptations

A black-and-white photo of suffragettes, with their faces replaced by rat heads and their sign edited to say "VOTES FOR VERMIN"

Oh thaaaaat’s why this joke hasn’t done numbers

bsky.app/profile/dubn...

WTF is 'Google Zero'? Years of SEO strategy are now colliding with a system dishes to answer, not refer. The result: for many publishers traffic is slowing.

Right, this is the Google Zero problem publishers have been dreading for the past year:

digiday.com/marketing/wt...

bsky.app/profile/dubn...

$160: bag of Kerr's sour cream and onion potato chips
$50,000: Cava takeout bag
$90,000: frozen pie crust boxes

Other acceptable bribe conveyances:

$10: empty pack of Juicy Fruit
$10,000: 50-count bag of fun-size Snickers
$250,000: commemorative Nats cup (24-oz)
$700,000: Zaytinya doggie bag

Matinee! Now that is a deep cut.

I've been out of this field for a while, so I don't know what's been filed recently. There's definitely a huge gap in case filings between conduct and merger cases, but I'd be surprised if the settlement rates are that different. But my gut could certainly be wrong!

They're also more tenuous cases than conduct claims. It's a lot harder to convince a court that your predictions about what might happen in the future are definitely right than to prove past misconduct.

(Also I think the profitability piece is more about lack of damages than settlement incentives)

This thread sums up my remedial concerns well

bsky.app/profile/kenw...

Maybe there’s a state-law equivalent that gets around the Bivens problem, but I don’t know enough about that to know

This one also not so helpful

bsky.app/profile/thet...

Yes! Preorder my incredible friend @chanda.bsky.social’s new book from my incredible local bookstore @loyaltybooks.bsky.social!!

This too!

manhattan.institute/article/amic...

It's not the kind of thing that helps them, that's for sure!

I can see a couple reasons the QI analysis should come out differently: we now have clear precedent that didn't exist when Vullo acted, & this is about public televised threats that are more plainly over the line than privately communicated enforcement letters. But I haven't read the remand opinion.

Interesting. Justice Thomas, at least, would seem to disagree! www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20p...

(But only against the government, not the threatened regulated entities, to be clear)

a. Declaring, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Defendants have violated the NRA’s rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection under both the Federal and New York Constitutions; b. Granting a preliminary and permanent injunction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering DFS, its agents, representatives, employees and servants and all persons and entities in concert or participation with it, Cuomo (in his official capacity), and Vullo (in her official capacity): (1) to immediately cease and refrain from engaging in any conduct or activity which has the purpose or effect of interfering with the NRA’s exercise of the rights afforded to it under the First and Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 8 to the New York Constitution; (2) to immediately cease and refrain from engaging in any conduct or activity which has the purpose or effect of interfering with, terminating, or diminishing any of the NRA’s contracts and/or business relationships with any organizations; (3) to immediately cease and refrain from further selective enforcement of the Insurance Laws to the NRA endorsed policies; and (4) to enjoin or preclude the enforcement of the provisions of the Lockton and Chubb Consent Orders purporting to prohibit Lockton and Chubb from doing business with the NRA;

b. Granting such other injunctive relief to which the NRA is entitled; c. Awarding the NRA actual damages, including compensatory and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined at trial; d. Awarding the NRA exemplary or punitive damages; e. Awarding the NRA pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rates; f. Awarding the NRA such costs and disbursement as are incurred in prosecuting this action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and g. Granting the NRA such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper

Right. Here's what NRA is seeking -- damages and injunctive relief.

Actually, I take it back -- although Vullo isn't about standing, it's hard to see it as not implicitly acknowledging that a person can bring a First Amendment complaint when a regulator threatens a regulated entity if it deals with that person.

What's the remedy, though? Damages?

I have to think NRA v. Vullo provides a strong merits argument, but I could see a court kicking him on standing -- holding (implausibly) that the effect on ABC's actions aren't predictable enough under Commerce v. New York.

Weird that he left this one out: www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andr...

Tie between kicking in the door and “give him help” for me