alksdmfkjdnfs

@malmesburyman John O’Hara - an appointment in Samarra

I really appreciate the excellent discussion this post provoked! Thank you to everyone who participated. I asked grok put together a weighted ranked list, based on the number of times an author was mentioned in all the replies, and the likes each reply received. Here is the list: • John Kennedy Toole • John Gardner • Larry McMurtry • Robert Penn Warren • David Foster Wallace • Walker Percy • Ken Kesey • John Williams • Don DeLillo • Tom Wolfe • Paul Theroux • Flannery O’Connor • Mark Helprin • Gary Jennings • Trevanian • Kurt Vonnegut • Philip Roth • Denis Johnson • Charles Portis • J.F. Powers • Richard Russo • Norman Mailer • Thomas Pynchon • John Updike • Jack Kerouac • John Steinbeck • John Fowles • Gore Vidal • Mona Simpson • Ron Hansen • Joseph Heller • Charles Frazier • Thomas Berger • Michael Crichton • Pat Conroy • William Styron • Saul Bellow • Vladimir Nabokov • William Gaddis • John Barth • Toni Morrison • Ursula K. Le Guin • Ayn Rand • Steven Pressfield • A.J.R. Klopp

@teafortillerman @ibmmiller @Legal_Fil All good - and im not well read on the one you mentioned

@aus39760 @ibmmiller @Legal_Fil Reading too fast or mixing up threads, time to touch grass

Are people actually unaware that Obama did a version of this with bank settlements, or are they just pretending not to know because it is convenient?

@teafortillerman @ibmmiller @Legal_Fil 1) the parties in Keepseagle were adverse 2) the matter was earnestly litigated 3) the settlement was approved via Rule 23 4) judge maintained involvement in claims 5) claimants were identifiable class members 6) claims administrator was not a board appointed by the Exec Branch

@aus39760 @ibmmiller @Legal_Fil Name one material difference.

@HabCorpLinguist He’s not going to hire you

@Legal_Fil Are you talking about the Keepseagle matter? If so, you are either lying or in a realm that requires a higher IQ than you have

Criticize Trump all you like for this, I truly don’t care. But let’s stop pretending that the precedent wasn’t established for this sort of corruption.

@rwilliamsdc @Legal_Fil In Keepseagle v Vilsack, Indian farmer sued Dept of Ag, and settled for 100s of mils. The fund paid the farmers’ claims, then gave the remaining funds to Native American nonprofits. A judge oversaw the entire thing. Different from the Trump fund in key ways

@Legal_Fil Can you advise what you are talking about? Did Obama create a fund with settlement money?

@ibmmiller @Legal_Fil Native American farmers sue Ag Dept. settle for 100s of mil. Set up fund to pay farmers, remaining funds to go to trust that benefits farmers through nonprofits. Matter is called Keepseagle v Vilsack, and there are about 50 key differences between that matter and Trump’s fund

@Legal_Fil i am unaware. i would like to become aware.

@Micheal_Stirton @CollinRugg Whether Mike Stirton cares is not the legal standard for misleading advertisements

@CollinRugg Meh. I don't care. I've used them in the past to get rid of an old ride that I couldn't trade in. The other option was to pay a tow truck to haul it to a wrecker yard and pay the weight fee...OR, get a few bucks and let these guys do whatever it is they do to make money on it.

NEW: California judge bans Kars4Kids ads from broadcasting in California, says the money was mostly going to a Jewish organization in New Jersey. Judge Gassia Apkarian alleged that the ads were misleading because they led the public “into believing donations aid underprivileged children in California.” “…the funds primarily support a separate organization benefiting specific families in New York, New Jersey, and abroad based on religious affiliation,” the judge said. Kars4Kids primarily funds Oorah, which spends money on various programs and initiatives including a $16.5 million purchase of a building in Israel, according to the New York Times. “We believe this decision is deeply flawed, ignores the facts and misapplies the law,” the organization said. “It’s well known that we are a Jewish organization and our website makes it abundantly clear.”

@kurtlash1 Kurt - in light of this history, do you view RLUIPA as curing any of RFRA’s defects? Or is it equally suspect.

I had noticed Prof. Baude's jibe at Boerne, but let it pass. This seems worth some comment, though. The reason why there is a disparity between the court's treatment of state laws and federal laws in this area is because Boerne is a federalism case--limiting federal power to intrude into matters reserved to the states. If you think that is an odd doctrine to apply to powers granted under the 14thAmendment, you need to revisit the original framing and ratification congressional debates. Radical Republicans rejected all federalism limits and thought neither the 13th or 14th amendments were necessary--congress should be viewed as having plenary power over civil rights in the states. Moderate republicans (like Bingham) rejected that view, and did so expressly citing the tenth amendment and the need to preserve constitutional federalism. Historians not trained in legal history often describe the Reconstruction Amendments as either eradicating federalism or as driven by nationalist theories of federal power. That might have been the case after the Fall elections 1866 when Republicans gained supermajorities. But the 13th and 14th amendments were framed and sent to the states for ratification prior to Fall 1866, when a combination of moderates and conservatives controlled the adenda. And these folks insisted that Madison's theory of a constitution neither wholly national nor wholly federal and the declaration of the 10th amendment were exactly right. Most importantly, these Republicans believed that the South had betrayed Madison's theories of constitutional federalism twice over: first by demanding the nationalization of slavery into the northern free states and second, when that failed, demanding the right of unilateral secession. Republicans sought to better secure the constitution as it was meant to be from the beginning. Boerne's reading of limited federal power to interfere with retained state authority is consistent with this "originalist" history. Put another way, the people of 1868 believed in the enforcement of all of the Bill of Rights--including the tenth amendment. blog.dividedargument.com/p/problems-wit…

@ptbrennan11 “The bedrock attribute of a successful city district is that a person must feel personally safe and secure on the street among all these strangers.”

Navy Yard is a 1/4-square-mile encapsulation of American urbanism's successes and failures: basically good design, abundant and therefore not massively overpriced housing, great use of natural assets (the water) ... being undone by inability to control crime and civil disorder.

@whignewtons @charlescwcooke The First Amendment does that, not the case. And of course, the court can overturn the campaign finance elements of the holding while maintaining the dubious ones you just described

And while I’m at it, Citizens United prevents the government from banning movies, books, and pamphlets that criticize (or support) a candidate for federal office. So all yall wanting to “overturn CU” either don’t know what the case was about or scare the hell out it me.

@biglawbro Clearly getting paid to post this

i had harvey at my old firm 2 years ago and it wasn't much value. i hear it's better. Legora is like nothing i've seen before. law is changing dramatically

@cutt65477 @herandrews Black people do not pay a premium to live in black neighborhoods. Every group pays a premium to live in white neighborhoods.

Forgive me if this is a dumb question. Social scientists have tried to quantify the premium people will pay to live in a white neighborhood. If those neighborhoods are more scarce now than 30 years ago, simply due to demographic change, does that increase the premium?

@martyrdison angling for that TMZ DC job?

easiest places to find a gf/bf in DC: - longworth cafeteria starbucks line - protest in lafayette square - tune inn at 2am - the e barrett prettyman federal courthouse - making eye contact on the dirksen line electric monorail - arlington national cemetery - pentagon security line - dulles people movers - the burned out rubble of rfk stadium - tatte bakery - any random sit down political dinner at the capitol hilton - desert 5 - rave at vera on saturdays - the basement of capital hill club at 2pm on a weekday

@SMB_Attorney Why put “not enough work” under “not capable”

I’ve worked across several AmLaw 50 firms and now run my own firm. This is why associates don’t hit their hours (and why people generally fail in any workplace). Associates don’t hit their hours for a wide variety of reasons that fall into three categories: 1. They don’t know what to do. They lack training on how and what to bill (resulting in underbilling) or haven’t figured out how to navigate their firm’s system to build relationships and secure steady work. 2. They are not capable. This is mainly because there is not enough work in the firm or they have work ethic issues. 3. They don’t want to do it. Sometimes their short-term objectives don’t align with the firm’s, they are on their way out, or they are being defiant. Most of the time, it’s some combination of these three. It’s definitely not a simple product of laziness or inefficiency. In fact, most associates are rational and good people who were lifetime high achievers with Type A personalities. The #1 reason… by a mile… is that the firm doesn’t have enough work, and that’s completely beyond their control.

@dilanesper How would you, a genius, describe what Mark Elias engages in?

usually people who use the term are expressing bonehead partisan conspiracy theories unworthy even of a tinfoil hat. but it sounds good to partisan rubes so the term has popularity despite having no coherent content.

Fun fact: I have never heard a person making an intelligent point use the term "lawfare". it is basically a signal that you should ignore whatever is being said

@dilanesper Dilan, you’re a giant, dishonest loser lawyer who only makes excuses for legal development when it benefits the left, which is why you donate to the ACLU. Fuck you.

You aren't allowed to lie to your client about the law, or to make up a theory with no legal support and falsely tell your client it is the law when it is not. And you aren't allowed to take any position in court unsupported by current law or a good faith argument to change it.

@cantsmokehere @johnsemley3000 @WIRED Isn’t the point that many bands have as much (or more) talent but not the resources or connections to be propelled forward? If every indie band in Brooklyn, let alone NY or the country, had this level of support would Geese even be in the top 1000? 10,000?

@johnsemley3000 @WIRED you admit in these replies that you don’t think this marketing campaign would have worked if geese didn’t also have the talent to back it up. if you really believe that, what is the point of calling them a plant? this seems like a bad faith argument.

@forevercomedown Isn’t the point that many talented artists (usually more talented than Geese) would cause that same happiness, if they had similar access to nuclear strength PR?

After seeing Geese live, and the pure happiness on people's faces, I know that there are lots of very real fans who connect to their music, despite shady music biz PR doing their thing.

@2pac2furious @gran1te_mtn The story is of course resonating with many because when a mediocre person is inexplicably famous or successful, they happen to be Jewish without fail

@gran1te_mtn Trans guitarist AND a jewish frontman? Who writes this shit

I’ve been watching trends in indie music for like 25yrs and, while I think Geese is ok (the guy’s solo album is actually much better), this was one of the most obvious “campaigns” to anoint a band I had ever seen.