Marc

My understanding is that the cameras in the chamber are under the control of the House, not C-SPAN, even when C-SPAN broadcasts the feed.

GOP controls the chamber so they control the cameras, right?

Enjoy - drinkinggame.us

These claims appear to be time-barred, right #Lawsky? FL statutes referenced have 4y and 2y SoL.

First, Apex Doctrine. Second, this would be a contract breach suit; the name change decision making process isn't necessarily relevant, and it almost certainly isn't relevant enough to overcome Apex. Hard to imagine a judge compelling Trump's testimony here.

If there was some consideration to him in the contract then it's a presumptively a valid contract that he breached.

Not clear that his being paid matters. That it was a free concert should lower potential breach damages bc the Center didn't lose ticket revenue. There are other expenses and reasonably expected revenue they might be able to claim. As Akiva notes in the thread, it depends on the contract terms.

a movie scene with a caption that says " never underestimate the power of the schwartz " ALT: a movie scene with a caption that says " never underestimate the power of the schwartz "

And way more than 6 times

a man in a suit and glasses says the runner up gets eaten ALT: a man in a suit and glasses says the runner up gets eaten

The West Wing, "Shibboleth" s2e8 and "Indians in the Lobby" s3e7

But to preserve the adage, the same grand jury returned a true bill on the sandwich itself.

States are the problem. They have no inherent value as political entities in 2025, if they ever did. There's little truth in the argument that they're internally consistent with respect to social values, etc. such that state governments are meaningfully representative of their populations.

So the "Let's do the numbers" music is now going to be the Benny Hill theme?

Once again: LLMs are word-association algorithms. They are incapable of grokking that the words they parse correspond to actual objects & phenomena outside of their own algorithms. To an LLM, its statements depend not on facts but on how often words occur together in the material the're trained on.

Is it a lie if she's just wholly ignorant of the law? /sarcasm/ @nytpitchbot.bsky.social

Yup, that's how HaSatan is typically understood/translated in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), as found in Zechariah and Job.

They should be liable for infringement on their acquisition of the works, separate from the question of whether their use of the works to train models is Fair Use.

OK, gather 'round, kiddies - let's do a "why are lawyers like this" thread.

Specifically, let's do a "why does the simplest software come with mandatory IP licenses that assert claims to all the rights you have in the universe, up to and possibly not excluding in your firstborn offspring.

i agree that the appearance of corruption is its own problem. I'm stipulating the existence of that appearance wrt Thomas and am instead curious about the substance, for the reasons I wrote. I agree that SCOTUS should be subject to the same ethics rules as the rest of the judiciary.

Solid point, and it'll be interesting to see if the opposite holds true when they want to replace him. This was probably more the case earlier, though. At 77, he can retire, give a few speeches, have someone ghostwrite a book, and live pretty much the same lifestyle.

Yes. I won't claim to be a Thomas scholar, but I'm not aware of any deviation in his reasoning over his career that would suggest that his sponsors over the last few decades had shifted things one way or another.

I fully agree, and SCOTUS should be required to abide the same ethics standards as the rest of the judiciary. This piece of the puzzle has always just seemed odd to me. What's the value that Crow is buying?

Sure, but even that doesn't quite hold here if Thomas would do the same thing with or without his RV and fancy vacations. I'm not inclined to defend Thomas (I find his rulings and reasoning to be faulty and problematic, at best), but is there a real claim that he would act differently sans Crow?

I agree, but the Thomas/Crow relationship corruption analysis has always seemed to be missing a piece - there isn't any indication in Thomas's history, writing, or speaking that he was inclined to rule contrary to Crow's (or other billionaires') interests. There's quid, but the quo is dodgy.

House seats aren't filled by gubernatorial appointment, per US Const, Art 1, Sec. 2, cl.4, but by special election. 2 of the 3 are from states w./ GOP governors (TX, VA) who will slow-play the special elections; AZ special election set for Sept. That Dems keep too many geriatrics is fair shot.

Get the audiobook. It's just Mel telling his story for 7 hours. Delightful!

"Get in, loser. We're going to break the internet!"

The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has set up a system that sharply restricts what the government can do lawfully but puts almost no limits on what the government can do lawlessly. That seems bad.