The Judge is now patiently trying to get Kleinhandler to understand the difference between saying "I think MLB is wrong about GA voting law" and "I think that means it was bad faith"
Holy shit. Never say "wait a minute, your Honor" to a judge
Kleinhandler just said that MLB was free to cancel the ASG entirely, just not able to move it to a different state
Note: Kleinhandler just agreed that his clients had no damages from the thing he said was wrong
The judge now patiently explaining to Kleinhandler the difference between "moving an All Star Game" and "discrimination on the basis of race"
The Judge: You're not alleging discrimination based on race
Klownhandler: Yes I am
Judge: You haven't even alleged JCN has a single minority member!
Klown: OK, that's true
Judge now explaining that you can't "hinder" anyone from exercising a constitutional right by advocating for a change in the law that Klownhandler's clients think is bad
Judge: You agree that if I reject your state actor you lose, right?
Klown: No, because the state will be intimidated into passing a bad law to accommodate MLB
Judge: What evidence do you have that might happen?
Klown: The threat is sufficient.

Um ... no
Judge: What factual allegations have you given me to let me infer that the Georgia legislature is intimidated?

Klownhandler: <Dead silence, then> You can assume it. I don't need to prove the state is actually going to react. Just being called Jim Crow is enough
Klownhandler: Private parties can't threaten states with punitive action because they don't like the law

Judge: You can't possibly think that.
Judge gives an example that is literally the same: No contract, a manufacturer plans to move to the state and then says "no, new law doesn't meet our values"

Klownhandler: That would be fine.
Judge goes: So what's the difference and Klown changes his mind. No, can't do that.

Judge: OK, what else do you want me to know?
I'll be honest, if I were representing MLB/MLBPA I'd probably stand up and just ask the Judge if she needs to hear anything from me
Klownhandler: My softball guy was told that the teams cancelled because the ASG was pulled. It's in his affidavit

Judge, looking: No it's not

Klown, reflecting: OK, no, but I can amend it to add that
This is just brutal. Judge: No need for an injunction, money damages are fine

Klown: No

Judge: YOUR CLIENT said it would be fine

Klown: But an injunction would be easier
Judge: Don't you need to show a super high likelihood of relief given that you're asking for all of the relief in the case?

Klown: No, we briefed that, we're just asking you to restore the status quo

Judge: Dumbkopf, you ignored the other half of the standard
Judge: You keep wanting to argue the Georgia law is a good law. But who the hell cares? Under your theory, let's say Planned Parenthood had announced a convention for GA 2 years ago, and then 3 months before the convention GA outlaws abortion. You're saying PP still has to go?
Klownhandler: No

Judge: So they could move it to Colorado?

Klown: Yes, because that would be a valid reason. This isn't a valid reason.
I'm impressed at the amount of time this judge is spending trying to help Klownhandler understand how stupid his arguments are. Most judges would just have said "thank you Mr. Klown, you can sit down now" long since
The judge is so fucking exasperated right now. Trying to explain to klown that his example of "10 KKK members blocking a polling place" would actually be a problem
Judge: I don't get how this is hindering GA from providing equal protection to its citizens. It's not preventing the state from protecting its black, white, asian, male, female, etc. citizens. Where's the equal protection issue?

Klown: They haven't gotten an All Star Game
Klown: Dead silence

Judge: OK, enough, sit down. Let's hear from MLB
MLB Lawyer: I don't know that I have much to say, you kind of hit all my points already, even the 1st Amendment
Judge: What did MLB say was the reason it moved the game

MLB Lawyer: Quotes press release saying "best way to support our value of supporting voting rights". The only Constitutional issue would be if you enjoined them from doing that
MLB is done. Union up. Gets the judge to crack up by noting that they don't often agree with the league office, but here ...
MLBPA: What the hell are we doing here? They say we're a conspirator, but they cite all sorts of things showing there was no agreement with the union
Union lawyer just rolled through with no questions. Klown is back up.

"We haven't talked about the deprivation clause" Oh dear.
MLB is punishing GA residents with the aim of forcing GA to change the law. I argue that the mere threat & harassments is a violation of the deprivation clause. (Dude is out of his fucking mind)
A business boycotting a state over a law is not a violation of the deprivation clause.
Klown: The equal protection violation is preventing the citizens of Atlanta from getting the economic benefit. And not having the GA voting law would violate equal protection
Klown: Letting MLB do this would be preclearance again

Judge <flabber fully and audibly ghasted>: Wha- wha- wait? What? Say that again?

Klown: If Congress can't do it under Shelby county, MLB certainly can't
Judge: Did you make that argument in your brief?

<He did, she apparently blacked out the memory in self defense; there's only so much stupidity one normal mind can hold>
Klown: The union is in because its clear they communicated with Manfred about this

Judge: Communication isn't enough

Klown: No. But we have evidence they agreed, which is that they communicated
Judge is trying to pick her jaw off the floor, AFAICT.

"Your complaint has to have some facts"

Klown: The facts are in the complaint

Judge: Where? It says "aware of the GA law".

Klown: We conclusorily alleged there was an agreement
Klown: We named them as a defendant because we need them to play in the ASG

I ... I just can't
Klown: Your honor, I think the perception you have that MLB can have an opinion on the voting law is inconsistent with the congressional statutes about what harm you can cause.

Now again arguing that MLB's opinion is substantively wrong.
Klown: You are not allowed to choose to move a business from one state to another based on not liking the laws GA made. Maybe you disagree, but that's not a valid reason, SCOTUS says this is ok
Judge: NO! SCOTUS said it's not unconstitutional. That doesn't mean it's good policy. People are allowed to disagree that a particular policy is good, even if it's legal.
Judge: So do you lose based on that

Klown: But that's wrong

Judge: Assume it's right

Klown: Picks up his shovel and keeps digging through the courtroom floor
Judge: Companies have first amendment rights to disagree on policy and move on that basis.
Judge: You know I'm not going to find that moving the ASG intimidates the GA legislature, right?

Klown: No. You're going to find that it does.
Klown: You just have to find intimidation

Judge: Who was intimidated?

Klown: GA

Judge: How?

Klown: They were punished

Judge: Punishment isn't intimidation!
Judge: OK, enough. Anyone else

MLBPA: Not only hasn't he PLED anything against us, but to get an injunction he needs evidence and he has none
Judge: Let's take a 5 minute break

She'll be ruling from the bench shortly, y'all
Note for non-lawyers (and non-longtime followers): Rulings from the bench are rare. Usually, judges like to take time to mull over what they heard at argument, even if only to flesh out how they address certain legal points in their ruling. This ... does not require that time.
Judge is back. Motion is denied. Plaintiff lacks standing. No showing of irreparable harm. Can't reach the merits because Plaintiff has no standing.
They're about to have their case dismissed without any motion by the defendants
She's reading a full, written decision into the record, complete with citations, btw. I have a work call at 5, so I hope she reads quick
Going through the standards on standing, including organizational standing
Now discussing standing to seek injunctive relief. Can't rely on past injuries, only future injury. Here, Plaintiff alleges no future injury to JCN itself.
Nowhere does the complaint allege how moving the ASG could have any impact on JCN's mission of advocating against bad policy. No, spending money on advocacy doesn't count when that's already its mission.
Littler Girl has now come downstairs and is loudly playing with noisemaking toys, so I'm not hearing this fully clearly, and I've got to jump off for this work call. @questauthority has you covered for any additional big points from this opinion

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AkivaMCohen

10 Jun
This is both true and false. There's no proof that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. But evidence is not the same as proof; evidence is "available facts which tend to support a conclusion." There's evidence sufficient to say "it's a war crime unless XYZ"
@elderofziyon is correct, however, that the IDF has (1) claimed to be following the laws of war in their targeting decisions; (2) demonstrated significant attempts to minimize civilian casualties, warranting a level of trust that they are attempting to follow the laws of war; and
(3) proffered explanations that, if true, would mean that they did not commit war crimes. And we (the public) are simply not going to know for certain whether those explanations are true; revealing proof of those claims would threaten IDF sources and methods, so it won't happen.
Read 8 tweets
4 Jun
OK, as promised, a thread on the flaming bag stuffed with feces Mike Lindell and his excellent lawyers at @BTLawNews left on the electronic doorstep of the Minnesota federal court yesterday
And yes, I tagged @BTLawNews (and am tagging their other practices @BTLawLE @BTLawTrade @BTLawDC) for a reason. I'm not sure they understand how rapidly this filing is torpedoing their reputation; I've already seen GC's on here pledging never to send them any business
And that's well deserved. Not only did @BTLawNews @BTLawLE @BTLawTrade @BTLawDC sign up for a morally repugnant assault on American democracy, *but they did a craptastic legal job doing it*. In-house counsel thus gets to stay away for both moral and practical reasons
Read 99 tweets
2 Jun
OMG, what? They filed a *civil rights* claim against MLB moving the All Star game?

People, this is not a thing. It's not even in the same zip code of a thing
Let's count the ways this is not a thing. Long-time readers will probably be able to sing along
Here's who the plaintiff is, in this lawsuit over <checks notes> harm to Atlanta businesses.

A Texas based non-profit whose mission is to highlight the economic impact of bad policy.

Makes sense. Yes, you definitely have standing here. 100%
Read 46 tweets
30 May
1) This is not a bad provision, guys. If you can prove that there were 10K illegal votes in an election won by 9K, you SHOULD be able to void the election

2) That's how most states do it already

3) The proof issues for Trump weren't "how individual voters voted
Judd Legum is freaking out, and more importantly freaking his readers out, but he's dead wrong. This is EXACTLY the standard that got Trump suits tossed in Georgia and Pennsylvania and Arizona and ...
It's not unprecedented. It's not radical. I'm not sure what else is in the bill, and judging by history I'm sure it's got other objectionable provisions, but this isn't one of them. Judd, how do you imagine anyone could ever prove how individuals voted?

Read 6 tweets
28 May
When you absolutely, fundamentally, and enthusiastically refuse to understand Jewish history.

It's not bigotry. It's not particularly specific to Palestinians, or Arabs.

It's 2000 years of persecutions, expulsions, and murders conducted under the auspices of gentile governments
We're done with that. We're not going back to that. And if the best you can offer is "that won't happen this time" or "the world won't let it happen again" ...

Tell that to the Uighurs. And Yazidi. And Darfuri. And Tutsi. And ...
Oops, skipped the Rohingya. My bad.

You get the point.
Read 9 tweets
13 May
People don't seem to understand that you can AND SHOULD stand with innocents under fire no matter what you think of their government.
And if you're going to respond to this by posting a video of something you're mad at the IDF for doing, YOU are the problem
And if you're going to respond to this by talking about how Hamas deserves it YOU are the problem
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!