Mike Vrabel had 'difficult conversations' over Russini photos

Why difficult? I thought it was “laughable” to think anything untoward was going on?

I don’t understand this conditional:
The antecedent is not satisfied bc there is currently not a level playing field.

So what do you do going forward?

(Furthermore, a key problem in gerrymandering is that there isn’t a great answer to “what is a level playing field”)

a bald man with a beard and mustache is saying no i am the one who knocks Alt: a bald man with a beard and mustache is saying no i am the one who knocks

The Mets do not get cursed. The Mets are the ones who curse

These are not inconsistent—perhaps he invited Netanyahu to turn himself in

In Tulsa, our local affiliate did a split screen

On my reading of the Rules, this is how Sachs should view Liptak's conduct--he can disagree that it is beneficial, but not a violation of his ethical obligations

When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the … rules of professional responsibility.

Again, Sachs may not think it's misconduct, but I think it's at least debatable, and that's perhaps enough to negate the scienter required of the judicial employee, and a fortiori of Liptak
7/

I'm unconvinced. They have life tenure and wealthy benefactors, and luxury RVs, and an empty seat on exotic planes

The 8.4(d) argument--that this is "prejudicial to the administration of justice" is similarly unavailing. Divulging misconduct is not prejudicial to the administration of justice.
6/

BUT even if the judicial employee engaged in, that's not enough. You have to show that Liptak KNEW the judicial employee engaged in misconduct.

And Sachs's arguments for that are rather weak. He contends this will disrupt the ability for them to deliberate freely.
5/

The rule explicitly allows for disclosing "misconduct"--and this could arguably be misconduct

Sachs may disagree that this is such an instance of misconduct. But his judgment does not supplant the judgment of the employee/judge in the rule.
4/

in the performance of such duties"

Then Sachs proceeds by proof by "plainly"--he says it is plain that divulging internal memoranda is not in furtherance of one's duties.

I disagree. If your institution is acting lawlessly, I think it can be part of your duties to divulge that.

He says it's widely known there are similar rules that apply to SCOTUS. idk what those secret SCOTUS rules are--neither do Justices Thomas or Alito--but I digress...

I'll use the JCC as a template. The relevant rule would prohibit divulging confidential information "except as required in the
3/

What "knowingly" (K) means here is unclear, but I think it's plausible (and imo the better reading) to interpret K as applying to "is a violation"--i.e., lawyer must know it's a violation

Sachs then appeals to the JCC, but he acknowledges that it doesn't apply to SCOTUS.
2/

I don't agree with Sachs's analysis of the rules, based on my reading of the text of the rules (idk about all the commentary and jazz)

8.4(f) prohibits "knowingly assist[ing] a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law"
1/

I was marveling at the beautiful eyes, and I cant seem to get off the couch

That Code doesn't apply to "employees of the United States Supreme Court," id. § 310.10(a), but it's widely known that the Court has adopted similar rules that do.

Weak sauce but I found this funny in an Alanis Morissette kinda way

John Apple. What are the chances?

WOW! Congrats!

She tormented brown children, Wurman torments homeless people

Does their hackery club require some merit badge of malevolence?

My b, apparently ROEs don’t count, in accord with the fact that they don’t count towards obp

Got it!

Right but this isn’t a hit streak, it’s an on-base streak. I thought ROE counts for the latter?

Didn’t he get on earlier in the game due to an error?

conservatives try to play dumb about the shadow docket, saying it's standard protocol and lacks any political valence. anyway, here we have the papers and roberts is saying "i realize this isn't standard protocol but we need to do this for politics"

anyone who knew someone with pancreatic cancer knows how big of a deal this is

The Inflation Reduction Act was the single most aggressive investment in rural America since the New Deal.

Direct investment, high wage jobs, energy security, you name it. It was all there.

Too bad it happened 200 years ago and all the records of it are lost forever.

Tell Kurt Lash my joke

5 guys walk into the bar, and not one of them was John Eastman

John Eastman not allowed in