The "careful, cautious" incrementalism of the Roberts Court is coming home to now.
SCOTUS has avoided every constitutional question, waited forever for just the right case to make just the right tiny point, and obsessed over its supposed "institutional" integrity.
Result? >
States and cities pass laws plainly premised on racial discrimination.
Activists repeatedly sue a bakery into oblivion because SCOTUS is tired of dealing with them.
Circuit courts rule with high-handed lawlessness -
all because everyone understands: >
There is virtually no national high court.
And thus there is virtually no national law. Different law in different circuits governs scores of significant substantive and procedural federal legal issues. Every federal statute and rule of procedure changes with the longitude. >
I don't know everything and I don't know everything about Twitter and u don't know everything about Twitter threads.
But I do know something. And one of those things is:
It's worth the effort to avoid breaking up sentences, much less clauses, across more than one tweet. >
One reason to do this is that when you don't, you're asking quite a lot of readers. Reading a sentence divided across multiple tweets is quite a strain on neurological resources.
I say this as someone who is grateful to have been amply endowed with such resources. >
You also want every tweet, to the extent possible, to be able to stand on its own. That may be a lot to ask, but people may realize it but many of us quickly scan a tweet and look for the last few words to do an initial assessment of coherence. >
Opening the @NYYRC dinner - @gavinwax: "The great thing about having James O'Keefe here is that when he buys a table the FBI buys all the tables around him"
I have been in a "chat" with @OptimumHelp for over
an hour and a half about new business internet service. This is the "help" I have gotten. Note the time stamps:
The exciting @OptimumHelp saga continues. No response to my pathetic 12:22 message.
Keep in mind THIS IS JUST TO GET ONLINE ACCESS TO FIND OUT IF THEY INSTALLED THE SERVICE
I just watched an hour of state-bar mandated Diversity 'n' Things CLE from a very good provider. The panel was intelligent, articulate and sophisticated. And in their work, they are just delivering what the market demands: diversity.
And things.
This made me think, though. >
A large part of the discussion was how law firm clients - big clients, publicly-owned clients, #woke and never, ever broke clients - are using their clout to make law firms more diverse 'n' things.
Of course, Big Corporations and Big Law need each other - and mirror each other.>
So it's not such a big deal.
Big law firms have, after all, long advanced the careers and wealth of lawyers from every race, creed and sexualness based on criteria having at least as much to do with social skills, clubability and pedigree as professional competence. >