I have argued for years that huge chunks of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence are exposed by the simple fact that if you switched the word “God” in whatever prayer, symbol, etc. people claim is perfectly fine to “Allah,” the very same people would have a fucking aneurysm.
This is also the most unintentionally funny news clip I’ve seen in awhile. They introduce Mr. Dumb Dumb by claiming that the charge that he “melted down” about this was “clickbait,” and he responds by launching right into demanding a(n obviously baseless) criminal investigation.
For the eleventy billionth time, deciding what speech you want to carry and what speech you want to exclude is an *exercise* of the First Amendment—not a violation of it—and “amending Section 230” won’t alter that reality, because the First Amendment itself protects that right.
Their angle is that while Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other behemoths can afford the compliance costs of Section 230 reform, their would-be competitors can’t. Regulating the competition out of business is a tactic as old as time.
I should note: The problem here is not retroactivity. The Board of Parole just needs to use its uncontroversial, existing authority to give new hearing dates to anyone who is presumptively entitled to release under this new law, which they refuse to do.
To illustrate by example: There are people who will become presumptively entitled to release in July 2021. Many of those people won't be given a parole hearing until 2022 or beyond, though, which means they won't be released for years. That's a BOP choice.
To begin, while the vast majority of laws are presumed (and are) constitutional, that presumption flips—dramatically—in certain contexts. Generally speaking, compelling people to say things that they don’t want to say is one of those contexts.
It’s that flipped presumption—where the Government has to meet the burden of proving that a law is constitutional—that leads to cases like this: tennessean.com/story/news/201…
It’s my understanding that this is the final text of the new Chancery “super court.” Unless I’m missing something, this is not that big a deal? It’s largely purposeless, sure, but this is a pretty modest change, particularly compared with what was initially proposed.
The folks who pushed this are going to be *shocked* to learn that the problem with their laughably unconstitutional shit was not, in fact, the county where suit is filed.
Relatedly (and I don’t have a great way to verify this), I would be pretty surprised to learn that more than a handful qualifying cases are filed each year. So I guess the 5-10 of us who file these kinds of cases regularly will get our own little special panel thing.
I have thought about this for years, and I am finally at the point where I’m completely convinced: There should be full and automatic fee shifting to prevailing parties in all litigation between private litigants.
Many. And their recoveries would have been larger and faster if big corporations and insurance companies had to worry about paying my fees.
Additional, related note: It would also make financial sense to represent individuals with low-damages cases against large corporations and insurance companies if you could win a fee-shift. Right now, it makes no financial sense at all.
), so to the extent they’re useful to anyone, I’ll link some of my favorites below. Also note: Most courts don’t ask for intros or require them. To quote Judge Sutton: “But the rules don’t prohibit them, either.”
My view on intros has always been that in addition to providing a road map for what follows, they should quickly introduce and then hammer home your strongest argument right upfront. Here’s the intro from the Ludye Wallace case, for instance: horwitz.law/wp-content/upl….
I’ve picked up a ton of new followers recently (Welcome! Sorry in advance!), so just to introduce myself and give you a sense of what I do, here’s a brief thread. Or you can just click the link down here👇 (tba.org/index.cfm?pg=L…) and be current through early 2018:
Here's the removal provision of the Tennessee Constitution. If you think it appears to contemplate removal of a judge for cause only, you are right.
In 1899, the issue was presented to the Tennessee Supreme Court in McCulley v. State, 53 S.W. 134, 137 (Tenn. 1899). The case involved whether, under Article 6, § 6, the General Assembly could, "for economic reasons,  remove a judge whose office is still in existence."
Every time I see a document that details attorneys’ hourly rates—information that is often very closely guarded, because the market for legal services is fucked up and broken—I am shocked and horrified by the hourly rates some people are charging. 100% success rate, never fails.
Are you a prosecutor? Are you nervous that a claimed constitutional violation will vacate not only a sentence, but also a guilty defendant’s conviction? Do you want to protect a victim by settling the case under favorable terms before a ruling? If so, this decision sucks for you.
Courts’ reflexive position that prosecutors only have discretion to be punitive is a separate problem. It’s just not correct. And don’t get me started on the outrageously disparate ways that the State and defendants are treated on appeal.
Let me put this in clear terms: The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility protects judicial misbehavior like this by actively targeting lawyers who speak out against judges, thereby deterring them from blowing the whistle. It is not an accident.
"How could this have gone on for five years without anyone saying anything," you might wonder? Don't. Lawyers who speak out against judicial misbehavior are punished for doing so. That's why nobody said anything.
I’ve spent years complaining about this. It’s a massive problem. The fact that the BPR—which recently attempted to expand its speech-policing authority—comes down hard on people who criticize judges but not bigotry is deliberate. Sandy Garrett needs to go. scotblog.org/2019/06/the-te…