good seed, no crows, hardly any poop ⭐⭐⭐⭐ would feed again

My experience with composting consists of two rules:
1. The compost bin never gets full, no matter how much you put into it and even if you never take any dirt out
2. The dirt always has recognizable things in it, which is why I never took any of it out.

"ma'am this is a wendy's" was right there tho

(but it doesn't really matter because DC's version of Rule 8.4(d) would not be applied)/x

DC has also adopted a test for what constitutes serious interference with the administration of justice. The conduct must be improper, bear on the judicial process w/respect to a specific case or tribunal, and it must taint or potentially impact the judicial process in more than a de minimis way /3

(From the perspective of DC, an attorney licensed in New York who is not practicing law in DC is a non-lawyer)/2

I don't think the choice of law question is hard. If Liptak is only licensed in NY, the theoretical disciplinary proceeding would be an exercise of NY's authority, so you use NY's 8.5(b), which says to use NY's rules. DC doesn't have jurisdiction over non-lawyers' non-lawyer activity./1

I don't understand the hand wringing about choice of law. If Liptak is only licensed in NY, any theoretical disciplinary proceeding would be an exercise of NY's disciplinary authority bc nobody else can discipline him, so the NY rules would apply.

The Bluebook decided not to use (cleaned up) because one of the editors had it in for me personally.

GODDAMN RIGHT YOU DID

still? fun stuff. Probably only a matter of time.

those are tied to clients/former clients/prospective clients (with imputed disqualification etc), so yes, lawyer stuff.

We could say well what if there were a real rule? but I'm not inclined to analyze whether there would be a violation in that fictional world

Yes, I think lawyer advertising restrictions, for example, have lost to the First Amendment. When I was in law school there were rules about disparaging a judge and I think those have gone away too. But I think Prof. Sachs's argument fails because there is no rule to help a justice violate

That said, almost all of the rules have to do with lawyer stuff. The big categories that might include non-lawyer stuff are dishonesty, failing to comply with court orders (eg paying child support), and criminal convictions.

I can tell you that in DC, an attorney is answerable for their conduct whether it occurs in the course of acting as an attorney or not. If you get convicted of fraud, you will be disbarred full stop. Context doesn't matter.

How would you propose to prove that helping a Justice act contrary to an aspirational standard stating what Justices "should" do is assisting a judicial officer in violating their rules of conduct?

In short, an attorney cannot be disciplined for helping a Justice violate standards because it is impossible to show that the Justice violated the standards. /x

It also does not contain any mechanism for enforcement. There is no means by which someone can complain that a Justice has violated the standards, nor any procedure by which such a complaint is to be evaluated. /3

screenshot of SCOTUS Code of Conduct with search bar showing zero instances of the word "shall."

The Code of Conduct for Justices does not contain a single thing that a Justice "shall" or "shall not" do. They all state only what a Justice "should" do. /2

Prof. Sachs suggests that our disciplinary system should recognize this as a violation. The problem is that one cannot prove a violation when the standard is what a Justice "should" do. /1

yes. The Supreme Court's standards are all "should" rules, not "shall" rules.

What we will never know is if @stevevladeck.bsky.social's post about SCOTUS staying the Clean Power Plan is what inspired the leak.

what'd I say?

@darthbluesky.bsky.social I feel like you have the answer to this. Have memes gone the way of Harambe?

Do we just not do memes any more? Is it just here or are memes dying everywhere?

it is

if we can't respectfully fact check you then all hope is lost evan

yes, that would be worse. like oh Dred Scott is fine but Korematsu is OUT