If you were a judge
who is afraid of his own shadow, afraid what you might do, what you should do,
what the law seems to demand, will be deeply unpopular with 1/2 the nation,
what would you do before ruling? What should you do?
If you were a judge
who has deep humility, who recognizes the law is ambiguous, and the point was
deeply uncontested, what would you do before ruling? What should you do?
It happens all the
time that judges call for amicus participation. Don’t read too much into it.
If you are a
loudmouth legal academic or serial-amicus filer public interest law “firm” or
think tank that has opined ceaselessly on the Flynn matter as being 100% clear,
but you do not file now—when asked to do so by a federal judge ... at a time
when the very rule of law and a just legal system hangs in the balance
(according to both sides) … then why should anyone listen to you ever again?
Why should anyone donate to your 501(c)(3) organization ever again? Why?
For an entirely different point of view, see <https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1260368540722442240>, and <http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6889388-Strike.html>.
For an entirely different point of view, see <https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1260368540722442240>, and <http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6889388-Strike.html>.
Seth
Seth Barrett Tillman, The Real World, New Reform Club (May 13, 2020, 3:44 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-real-world.html>;
No comments:
Post a Comment