That would track with what we’ve seen about how she works. She’s always portrayed as determined and resourceful, to the point of breaking social norms by either subverting expectations about her age, class, and gender, or else leaning so hard into them that it circles back around into being unexpected.

Boomers and early X a little buzzed and getting off on their first serious dose of ironic nostalgia, though the laughs were probably sweetened and recycled by the HBO crew.

Fun fact, ol’ Mel was born just outside New York City. His grandparents were born in the the US, Australia, and Ireland (2).

I understand that the movie is quite awful, and I haven’t seen it. Is this shot worse in motion, or did they consistently try to hide it with the handrails? If the latter, it’s not really all that bad for on-location shot.

In many ways, they are the work and they are the effects. American legal education, especially in the first year of the three, is largely an exercise in analyzing and extrapolating from these opinions.

The opinions of the court announce the decision, but they also declare the reasoning, which determines how it will apply to similar situations not under litigation, sometimes pretty formally and possibly even with bright-line limitations. They also reveal the court’s thinking, inviting people to pursue similar logic in cases they may file.

For more complex cases, an opinion will even set some of this out in a test with specific steps in the analysis, or with certain required elements to apply (e.g. Miranda warnings). There was a recent case that will likely be hugely influential where some guy got his civil penalty undone, but the real meat of it is that the majority opinion said that federal regulatory agencies have no power to interpret their own subject matter, and instead must defer all ambiguities to judges. Maybe good from time to time, such as when utterly unqualified boors are running the agencies, but generally this is going to make it very difficult for government to be effective, and it comes specifically from what’s in the opinion.

Even dissenting opinions can be important, outlining the opposing way of thinking and sitting there ready to be used if a similar question comes before a court with a different generational or political makeup.

I always thought Charlie Brown wasn’t intended to be bald so much as to be a pale white boy with a blond crewcut, like the kids from this old film, featured on the original 1981 Pee Wee Herman HBO special.

It’s certainly worth pointing out, though, as it underlines how self-reinforcing the judiciary is, and your data shows just how well the republicans have done to get judges confirmed (fuckin’ Mitch McConnell).

In an absolutely broken office (coughThomascough), the clerks could theoretically be told how the justice intends to vote, then cut loose to do all the research, formulate all the arguments, and write the entire opinion to receive rubber stamping by the justice. The justice might then, again completely hypothetically, be free to fuck off to god knows where in his bus-sized RV and enjoy all the best things that billionaires have to offer their good friends who became their good friends after joining SCOTUS.

In a properly functioning office, clerks will do all those things only after having been tutored on a cogent judicial philosophy, informed of some of the primary caselaw the justice knows of/respects, and have the opinions significantly reviewed and reworked by the justices themselves. The whole thing will generally be very collaborative, but with a justice making a good faith effort to evaluate the case before them. That said, even when applying them in good faith, some of the justices have extremely naive and unworkable judicial approaches that result in needless cruelty and can break a government built around a very high-level and obsolete consitution that depended WAY more on custom and assumptions of good faith than we might have thought.

I’m less concerned here because the justices pick their own clerks. The slight over-representation versus 6-3 suggests to me that, true to form, the conservatives have a little gaggle of elite judges that they rely upon, rather than giving the clerks from many judges a shot.

Early Peanuts was a lot edgier and the kids a lot more nuanced than what it became later when Schulz was coasting and collecting that dough. The ones this early can be downright dark without the microcosmic whimsy of the world he created for them in their “golden age.”

Well, as long as he’s then careful and polite like this woman.

So, uhhh, what was Mister Baldy up to?

I am familiar with legal Eagle, and I generally like him, though this underlines that these are entertainment videos and not law review submissions. By the same progression, law review articles, even those about legal history, generally aren’t sophisticated academic history papers. Same goes for those that touch on other field’s nexuses with the legal system. Lawyers are arrogant and get outside their lane regularly, and law professors are arroganter. :-)

I reckon either Devin or whoever else wrote the script was going off memory, and it all got conflated. It’s a miss, to be sure, but if I were inclined to cut him some slack, the CTEA was basically an amendment to the Copyright Act of 1976, and the whole Sonny Bono thing is more of an aside in the much longer video. Frankly, calling it Bono’s major policy accomplishment is a bit off in general, as Bono was just a co-sponsor on a similar bill, probably because the the entertainment industry backed his campaigns, and he had passed away by the time final version of the CTEA further extended 1976’s similar extension.

I would say just be careful with Legal Eagle, and view it as informational but not unimpeachable. In the videos I’ve watched, I haven’t seen anything that makes me think he’s communicating in bad faith or regularly being sloppy in how he analyzes issues. He of course has an agenda to serve his audience and to get content out in between whatever real legal work and firm management he does. I do feel pretty smug that I was complaining about law school not putting things into historical context, and here we see that’s exactly where our friendly neighborhood popularizer drops the ball.

Seriously, there is virtually no discussion of how language changes over the decades, how events of the day influence legislators and judges, and how all of that impacts future interpretation. The rise of “originalism” and “textualism” is specifically because law students are taught that they’re equipped to understand 250 year old texts just as well as the original drafters, and that the drafters were invariably operating with what we would consider acceptable morality. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that pretending to do so gives you the necessary cover to interpret the thing in exactly as retrograde a way as you need to satisfy conservative elites.

There is not nearly enough history of law in (US) law school, and absolutely zero required classes placing law and legal language in their proper historical and linguistic context. You read and discuss a few foundational cases at the beginning of each first-year course, and then the power of the pure legal mind, unmoored from idle distractions like “history” or “science”, is all the reasoning one needs.

It’s hard to tell from the article whether the professor was protesting the Chinese government or intentionally getting the page blocked specifically so no Chinese students would apply.

Yes, I’ve lived in the DFW area for over twenty years. It’s home, for better or (lately) for worse. Still, I don’t think any place is hopeless, and even today in Texas there are four blue voters for every 5 red ones. We just need more Ann Richards, Molly Ivins, and Willie Nelson, and fewer of these Christofascist assholes.

They also don’t realize that there’s a reason Abbott had to spend millions of Wilkes and Dunn’s money to primary a bunch of Republicans in the boonies. Those Friday Night Lights rural school districts, the ones that provide any sense of place, any average-paying jobs, and any excuse to go ahead and raise your kids in BFE, those are the first ones that will get ground into nothingness by the path envisioned for vouchers and ending recapture, which the rich suburban districts want.

Of course, that frees up more land for datacenters and fracking, so…

This is pretty much it.

The 2021 freeze still looms large in people’s minds, so while the grid actually has seemed to be hanging on better in Summer and Winter, things that threaten the still-isolated power supply draw attention. Then, Oracle/OpenAI set the precedent with Stargate in Abilene that you just stand these things up in the middle of nowhere because of cheap land and easy regulatory capture of the local politicians. The evolution of municipal governance in Texas also meant that the metro areas have fairly small core cities densely surrounded by independent municipalities, which often means that the tech companies can push that model into somewhat more densely packed areas, though it’s still often the exurbs (though not always… stupid Dallas city government). That means it’s the reddest parts of the state that are seeing them spring up and fuck the residents’ personal quality of life badly enough that they actually complain. There’s a big emphasis on the “M” part of NIMBY for them (because isn’t there always?) but the fact remains that no one else in the state has a big enough “BY.”

Very few of these people are ready to bail on single-party state government because they still buy the line that everything is regulatory hell and woke BS anywhere but God’s Own Property Texas, but if they see the state completely ignore them the one time they politely ask the republicans to not fuck them quite so roughly, then it’s going to be easier to stay home during the midterms. This is particularly problematic in a year when the Dems found a candidate with a pulse but who likes the Bible and looks like a Republican, and the Republicans are stuck with their primary voters’ pick, an asshole who is as corrupt as Trump but lacks even that weird sheen of “I’m your asshole” that Trump gives off to his base. Also, and this is shallow, when you’re the party that tries to project strength and vitality, having a ticket that consists of a droopy-eyed slug and a paraplegic in a wheelchair is something you have to figure out how to downplay.

Worst part of it is that they’re probably still gonna win. A little part of me hopes this is the year, but mostly I’m just hoping it’s close enough to drag out the spending and fuck the GOP’s budget in Maine and elsewhere.

Yeah, this is exactly what Trademark was made for. Same market category, same size, same art style, same font on the Latin characters, and same location and box for the Kanji. At a glance, I would absolutely assume Tokyo Banana was branching out. For me personally, that would mean I’d avoid them, because Tokyo Banana is overpriced “meh,” but the berry one is obviously intended to cause confusion and poach sales.

Too bad, because whatever the hell the Korean company was making was probably better than the upjumped twinkies that are Tokyo Bananas.