tshile

19 minutes ago, China said:

I agreed it was within the rules.  And I would be surprised if she wasn’t allowing arguments from both sides because that would surely give the impression of bias if she only allowed support from one side.   Even I don’t think she’s stupid enough to do that.

Right that’s fine. I’m just wondering where you are getting the idea it’s unusual. 
 

I find it odd the original article didn’t even bother to cover the process except to claim it’s unusual (didn’t even use the name for it…)

This isn’t exactly a hill I want to die on. I know very little about it all. I just know the article seems to be written weird.

and then there’s the tweet @The Evil Geniusposted where you have this person claiming to have 32 years experience, that he’s never seen nor heard of this happening, and then finished up with this 

“ Often, they won't even accept an amicus brief. So, yeah, highly irregular.”

which I thought - that’s odd cause I’m pretty sure it’s pretty normal so to say “often” they aren’t accepted seems weird. 
 

And of course with 2 seconds of google searching I found the ABA’s write up on some proposed rule changes in 2022 where they said where they cite research published in 2004 (which is before an established uptick in amicus briefs):

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Filing-of-Amicus-Curiae-Briefs-in-State-Courts-of-Corbally-Bross/04ad0a40ec5ad8cb4baa242ee2dcb404f9234e42

where the summary is:

Quote

Amicus briefs were most often used in tort and criminal cases. Finally, the courts' willingness to acknowledge, cite, and solicit amicus briefs was explored as a possible indicator of their influence. Amici were acknowledged in at least a third of the cases, and arguments made in the briefs were discussed in 82 percent of the sample cases. 

so you got a guy on twitter seeming to try to pretend his expertise says this never happens and btw even briefs “often … not accepted” with no context as to whether that may be because of where practiced or the type of cases he did. Just an appeal as authority on the subject matter. 
 

a person writing and article that provides no context around the procedure - doesn’t even use its name. 
 

idk. I’m open minded that this is highly unusual but the information presented thus far isn’t very good to support the argument. 

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

Fwiw someone commenyed on that both parties are now getting 3rd parties to argue in court.

The original article that was posted pointed this out. 
 

2 are arguing against Jack Smith, 1 for. 

Btw - you might want to consider groups that would be likely to do this sort of thing that maybe are more on your side than this case. 
 

NAACP is a good example. ACLU makes a living doing this stuff too.

Again - I think you’d need to find someone that’s well experienced in appellate level litigation, that you trust to be objective, to tell you how often they see this happen. I’ve seen it once - and that means basically nothing 😂 

but it’s clearly within the rule 🤷‍♂️ 

(and one of the people is presenting in support of Jack Smith….)

1 minute ago, China said:

That’s a permission that isn’t granted very often.  Unheard of?  No.  Highly unusual?  Yes

Where are you getting that from?

5 minutes ago, China said:

 

Amicus briefs are not abnormal.  But this is more than that.  This is having people not involved in the case participate in oral arguments, after amicus briefs have already been filed.

 

So this is abnormal.  You don't see the people of file amicus briefs to the Supreme Court participating in the oral arguments.

you sure about that? I watched one in person. 

it’s certainly well within the rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_29

Quote

(8) Oral Argument. An amicus curiae may participate in oral argument only with the court's permission.

I mean I’m far from someone that should be saying what’s usual or not in court. But it’s clearly an option per the rules, and I’ve seen it in person myself 🤷‍♂️ 

9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

That's extremely abnormal. Right? 

No, amicus briefs are pretty normal. The public would usually only hear about them in SCOTUS (if they dive deep enough into a case to get to that part) because those are way more publicized than general appellate court stuff. My firm does amicus briefs all the time. You would probably need to be involved in appellate level litigation to really know how often they come up. 
 

i searched the whole article and didn’t find the word “amicus” in it once. So someone wrote an analysis piece on a legal procedure without using the name of the procedure once in the article. Not once. Instead they used “third parties” and “friends of the court” - which is what amicus means. 
 

I suppose we can only read into why someone would do that - but it seems to me it’s certainly not because they’re trying to inform the reader or be factual about it.

anyways - amicus briefs:
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

Quote

The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court in which it is not a litigant. Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal; attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients. Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs are a way to articulate those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal or public policy implications of the court's anticipated decisions will not depend solely on the positions and arguments advanced by the parties directly involved in the case.

 

In prominent cases, amici curiae are generally organizations with sizable legal budgets. In the United States, for example, non-profit legal advocacy organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice or the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws(NORML), frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation. If a decision could affect an entire industry, companies other than the litigants may wish to have their concerns heard. In the United States, federal courtsoften hear cases involving the constitutionalityof state laws. Hence states may file briefs as amici curiae when their laws or interests are likely to be affected, as in the Supreme Courtcase McDonald v. Chicago, when thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) filed such briefs.^[15]

Yeah if you’re gonna show up late for the party you shouldn’t expect everyone to redo all the time you missed 😂 

😆 

@Bang

you forgot: isn’t dead, is being held captive wherever Obama is holding bin Ladin

I don’t see where that logic comes from whatsoever. 
 

if anything republicans have been reliable voters. Democrats biggest issue is their voters don’t show up to vote regularly. 
 

the maga people are mostly republicans 

turning around and saying they’ll only vote for Trump flies in the face of commonly accepted knowledge about the voting population going back decades

and if you look down ballot in 2020 and across the board in 2022, you see republicans showing up to continue to support republicans but not Trump and not MAGA republicans 

Was just talking about this at work with the MLB lifetime ban handed out yesterday. 
 

this is going to grow and grow rapidly. 
 

I support sports gambling - but the free for all way it was legalized and not regulated caused a mess we’re just starting to get a glimpse of. 

@TradeTheBeal! the laughing emoji doesn’t do that enough justice 

Clark clearly lives rent free in her head and it’s great to watch.

I drink half a pot to a pot a day

i drink it black

occasionally I like to drink a white monster, they stock them at work which is fantastic 

Just now, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

So if the GOP embraces early voting, doesn't that mean there's less chance the election will be 'rigged'?

Oh no that ship has sailed

if Biden wins by a small-medium amount they’ll say he won because of the fraud

if he wins by a large amount they’ll claim that’s impossible and evidence of the fraud 

I really want him to lose by a lot because I want the sound bite when he’s trying to use it as an excuse. I just want to cut out the part where he calls it’s the biggest landslide ever (and leave out the part where he claims that’s the evidence it was rigged)

6 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I heard that on the radio yesterday and didn't do any follow-up...did it happen?

No I guess I’m just late to the party 🤦🏼‍♂️

Why is my phone telling me the Lakers are looking to hire JJ Redick to be HC??

7 hours ago, hail2skins said:

At the end of that Daily Show segment Stewart asked Buck how the fever breaks, and Buck opined another crisis like 9/11 would bring us together.

 

In 2024, does anyone actually believe that?

Nope. Used to. After Covid? It was obvious we are permanently broke. 

What you’re seeing is the GOP coming to grips with the fact they can not win id they don’t embrace the early voting model

The contradiction doesn’t matter. They have to do this. It’s been talked about quite a bit since 2020. 

My wife spent 2 days lobbying people on Capitol Hill and now thinks she wants to get into lobbying

🤦🏼‍♂️

Someone save me 

Party of law and order

party of family values

not news but they are a caricature at this point 

6 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

But in  theory they could drop a ton of bricks on people that abuse this situation AFTER the fact

This is a lot harder than you would think. 
 

even when they are able to track down exactly who did it. 
 

I unfortunately have experience with this. There is a huge jurisdiction (and by extension resources) issue, and I’m talking about *after* you’ve identified the person. 
 

tracking them down is its own separate issue 

22 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

It does not sound right to me that anybody HAS to send a freaking SWAT team to someone's house any time some rando calls the police and asks them to. 

it’s only going to get worse when they start using generative AI to create the atmosphere on the phone and it becomes virtually impossible to tell if it’s possible a scam/prank (it’s already really hard to tell if the person is smart)

it’s a **** situation. If gun shots are going off in your house and your family members are screaming and the neighbor calls 911 how much time is acceptable to do due diligence? 
 

the answer is for the swat teams to respond in a way to accommodates for this problem that’s been around for 25 ****ing years (if not longer, pretty sure this has been going on since online video gaming took off. Pretty sure that’s where it started - I had a front row seat. May be wrong though)

for comparison purposes - fake bomb threads to get out school still work. So…

They’re both. 
Their agenda is to dismantle the federal government

they actually did a pretty good job. Il

not going to write it all up, I and others have before, but the damage done to important institutions is not even close to well covered by the media. 
 

we had a huge brain drain from certain agencies because they were talented enough to get out - and they’re never coming back (think the initial exodus from twitter when musk took over)

JD Vance is trying awfully hard 

Won’t that help with inflation and interest rates?

3 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

I’ve said all I have to say. I’m not the one slinging insults because I had a different opinion 

Well, at least you admit it. Next step is to apply comprehension 

not fond of how he responded and I certainly don’t agree with everything he said regarding Clinton, but he’s a pretty smart cat 

I understand why what he said put you on the defensive and you responded the way you did but he’s actually pretty level headed and fun to discuss things with. 

Do whatever you will with that information