McBride: Look, people are clutching their pearls at this guy yelling something at the president. They are more offended by a worker standing up to the president and calling him out for his hypocrisy than they are by the president trying to cover up for a human trafficking ring
How it started. How it's going.
Watching a DM with no idea what’s she’s doing while DMing a game where the players are four legendary DMs is a lot like watching the Delaware legislature, while consider amendments to the DGCL, introducing expert witnesses who are promptly ignored with no explanation.
Unfortunately applied on both a national level and in the DE legislature at the moment…
I cannot express how alarming it is to see a blue state legislature contemplate re-writing laws so a congenital billionaire lawbreaker doesn’t have to be inconvenienced by them anymore.
Rule of law doesn’t mean rule according to the whims of Silicon Valley oligarchs.
Professor Lipton makes numerous excellent points and I urge all who care about Delaware to listen carefully to what she has to say — including any members of the Delaware legislature who might take the time to listen this year instead of simply voting yes without question.
Do they teach Marbury v. Madison at Yale Law School?
Appalling behavior from a disgraceful majority. The only consolation if you can call it that is the simple fact that the more time they waste on this behavior is less time spent implementing a dangerous agenda to send us back even further.
And to say, effectively, that we can’t judge a harm that hasn’t yet occurred but might not (but almost assuredly will because why else would this be happening) is a wild proposition.
I’m sure Texas and Nevada courts will have no problem adjudicating those theoretical harms. /s
Maffei is exhausting. It’s as if the Court is saying “you can leave but you should want to stay because we’re better positioned to treat everyone fairly and that’s what everyone wants”
When of course that’s not what the people who want to leave want. That’s why they want to leave?!
I’ll also add, for the record, it is the Court of Chancery, not the Delaware Chancery Court. If you’re gonna criticize it, maybe try spending the 30 seconds to research the damn name. But hey what the hell do I know? I just spend my days covering it.
And to somehow equivocate Musk’s dislike and distaste for Delaware’s willingness to tell him no and that he has to follow rules in a world where he’s used to writing them to Chancellor McCormick writing an opinion following case law is so mindnumbing it hurts.
That maybe, just maybe, controllers can’t just strip their controlled companies for value and personal gain and that maybe we say that you do have obligations to think ever so slightly about not your own interests, alone, in a vacuum.
But even if we ignore just the generally poor discussion of the Court and the absolutely glaring lack of understanding of the nuances of law and politics in this state, the Times still manages to miss the point of decisions like Moelis and Tornetta:
I also find it interesting that the same people criticizing out of state voices in the legislative fight last year are the ones serving up only out of state voices for quotes, with the exception of former Chancellor Chandler.
Ignore the fact that they pulled quotes from individuals all on one particular side of this issue, the title implies that we sought this fight and was dragged willingly into it, when in reality the Court’s decisions were bizarrely reframed out of enforcing long existing law to culture war fights.
Go birds 🦅
Remember when Lina Khan blocked the Kroger/Albertsons merger, which would've sent grocery prices skyrocketing?
Trump’s new FTC pick vowed to end the “war on mergers.”
And wouldn’t you know it, Trump is now walking back his promise to lower grocery prices.
Funny how that works.
i am sure elon musk would be devastated if the federal courts shut down
(also does he know the delaware courts operate on a different budget?)
56 years ago, Santa got a friendly reception in Philadelphia. That’ll teach him to not wear green at an Eagles game 🦅
Full opinion. Majority by Judge Ginsburg, concurrence in part and in judgment by Chief Judge Srinivasan
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Justice Alito, for example, demonstrated his tech-savviness by asking “Let's say YouTube were a newspaper, how much would it weigh?”
These are clearly the folks I want deciding this important issues. Not that Congress is much better but at least they’re theoretically held accountable.
It also is concerning because it opens up another opportunity for SCOTUS to hear yet another internet case because the two last term went so well. 🙄 As I listened to those arguments, the nine seemed almost baffled that the internet is complex and vast.
And that doesn’t even begin to address the mental health aspects of this discussion.
If this gets struck down, it may yet be another nail in the coffin for badly needed content moderation and regulation reform that only Congress can implement. If TikTok is a problem because of its ownership, surely Meta, Twitter, and their ilk are as well for permitted misinformation.
Of course, Silicon Valley’s campaign contributions are a help for this…
This bill is frustrating to me on several levels beyond facilitating the expansion of corporate personhood. It’s clear that Congress has the capability to regulate the Internet and set some guardrails, but they’d only like to do it for individual companies in legally dubious manners.
