Elon Musk doesn't get his preferred judge for an antitrust claim against his critics; Musk and Trump did not violate the NLRA on their Twitter chat; various things are not defamation.
I am very disappointed in Ken this episode. His characterization of Alito and Thomas in relation to the Missouri case is absolutely wrong; I'm not 100% sure about Alito, but Thomas has long held that the Supreme Court is constitutionally obligated to take cases where it has original jurisdiction, far longer than Trump has been on the scene. Ken clearly knows this as shown by his statement that "dissents have occasionally been filed". Yeah, mainly filed by Thomas and Alito!
I get it, Ken doesn't like either Alito or Thomas. He might even think that they're partisan hacks that can't be trusted to fairly judge anything. But that doesn't mean he should be a partisan hack in return.
You are both reading tea leaves in interpreting a two sentence order.
Claiming that Ken is a hack, and you have the one true interpretation is more than a mite arrogant.
The claim that Ken's hackery is "proven" by Ken's statement that "dissents have occasionally been filed" is particularly ludicrous. First of all, assuming that Ken has an encyclopedic knowledge of original action denial dissents is is a Mr. Fantastik level reach.
It also doesn't make any sense as a matter of logic. If Thomas takes the position that the Court should always take these cases, he would always dissent, as opposed to "occassionally" dissenting.
Please simmer down and have a nice cup of warm milk.
For someone lecturing about arrogant interpretations, you seem to have a bit of it yourself. First, I am not interpreting a two sentence order; I'm interpreting a roughly 10 minute section of a podcast discussing a two sentence order and a longer dissent. Second, Thomas does, in fact, file a dissent in each of these cases that aren't taken; that's how I know that Ken knows. If I, a pure layman, know that much, I would hope that someone who comments on these issues professionally would know at least as much. If he doesn't then he shouldn't really be commenting on it.
I would be more willing to give Ken the benefit of the doubt if he didn't insinuate multiple times that Thomas and Alito are in the tank for Trump. Acknowledging that this has been one of Thomas's pet issues for decades would cut against that narrative.
I don't think Ken is a partisan hack; if I did, I wouldn't be subscribed. I do think his part in that section could be described as "hackish".
I just think that there's the possibility that everyone involved here, including the justices of the supreme court, the podcast host, and the podcast commentators, may be somewhat arrogant.
This may be a podcast by, for, and of the arrogant, that hackery may not perish from the Internet.
Yeah, this is correct. I'm no fan of Thomas or Alito, and less seemingly every opinion. But Thomas has taken this attitude since forever. He has argued–and I on't disagree–that the Court is required to hear cases in which it has original jurisdiction.
There's a good episode of Advisory Opinions where Sarah Isgur and David French go into a lot of detail about this case in particular and the history of such cases, and Thomas' view. The fact it, it's a procedural sticking point that makes no difference in practice.
There is no shortage of stuff to go after Thomas and Alito about that's genuinely awful. In this particular case, Thomas may be wrong, stupid, or irrelevant, but he is ideologically consistent going back decades.
On the other hand, Ken took a swipe at an extremely powerful person who often uses his position for personal gain and the destruction of democratic norms. I'm not even the tiniest little bit upset that Ken whiffed this one time.
Regardless of your personal beef, this is funny considering the conservative justices' pearl clutching over how politically-motivated prosecutors (who could indict a ham sandwich) might grind the executive branch to a halt.
Ken, I suppose you're not a European lawyer so you can't comment on the merits of boxer Imane Khelif's suit against J.K. Rowling and Elon Musk? I'm pretty sure it would be meritless in the US but France has different laws.
I would also be very interested in hearing about that. I recall reading that the US has a law that basically says that US courts cannot enforce judgements from other nations that don't comply with the first amendment.
28 United States Code § 4102. For a more detailed discussion google "ken white defamation threat response letter" The first hit on the search provides a classic example of Ken's inimitable style.
Obviously the rest of it was bogus, but I was sort of surprised "the local official isn't a statewide official" is a defense against a federal claim against the state as an entity. In the European system (both ECtHR and CJEU) a claim against a state encompasses all of its bodies, officials, and instrumentalities, regardless of its municipal law. It seems extremely reasonable to me that if you sue not the governor of New York, but New York itself, that an office created by the New York Constitution, elected by (a subset of) New York voters, enforcing New York's laws would be bound by any relief granted. Is there a reason for that narrower reach?
Ken you made a reference to judge-shopping, patent cases, and the Federal Districting system. And since I'm not an attorney, don't have any expertise in Intellectual Property, and also not from East Texas, I figured I would be the perfect person to add a little color to your reference for all of the fine scholars in the comment section.
The Eastern District of Texas includes such notable cities as Tyler, Lufkin, Texarkana, Sherman. (To her a little fair, the Sherman Division includes two major Dallas suburbs, Plano and McKinney).
The Tyler, TX division is the most interesting because the city of Tyler, TX (pop. ~106,000) is *the second best place in the country* to find a judge sympathetic to your case. One particularly notable thing that Tyler, TX does not contain is the real presence of any company that has ever once file an IP lawsuit in the court.
It really seems kind of crazy because the vast majority of companies who are fighting with each other over patents are headquartered in California, incorporated in Delaware, and fighting about patents in a sleepy little town in East Texas.
There are about as many patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas–Tyler Division every year as there are total in any other state, except for the rest of Texas because the only district court that's more friendly to IP litigation than the Eastern District of Texas is the Western District of Texas (which includes the court Ken was talking about in this episode, the sprawling metropolis of Wichita Falls, pop. 102,000).
The whole situation is a fascinating display of shameless corruption. The judges in these small towns are absolute celebrities and enjoy the perks you get when you are solely responsible for bringing 10s of millions of dollars of commerce into a city that is otherwise just a place people grow up hoping to escape from.
I'm from a tiny little hovel just outside of Waco, and I have the requisite amount of pride. Texas is truly the greatest country in the United States. But our most prominent claims to being number 1 are executions and frivolous lawsuits.
I kinda feel like we could work on this. There's other stuff we should focus on being great at.
Lucky for Ken he'll get to talk about George Santos again next episode, both for his guilty plea in the criminal case and because the court dismissed his claims against Jimmy Kimmel.
Can we set up a pool for subscribers to contribute towards getting Ken to buy a Cameo of him saying "It's Never RICO!" to celebrate? His rates have dropped dramatically!
There is actually some really interesting YouTube that go into how it arrived. I am under the impression that the source material was in the original publication but not in subsequent ones in short... siting sources and their version is essential in a story like this however, as such I challenge thIe serious statement that it is false if it's based only on the most recent publications.
Long story short: the dancers unionized and then the company fired them all and put up an audition notice to replace them. (The company’s fig leaf justification is absurd.)
I know you’re not a labor lawyer, Ken, but what kind of penalty could result if/when the NLRB rules against the company? (I assume there’s no criminal statutes applicable here.)
None of the free advertising Trump got in 2016 or 2020 were campaign finance violations. Its probably not a campaign finance violation to host an interview, even if they only interview one side. The business interest is to entice viewership, which may be one sided. That it endorses and promotes the campaign is no different to the finance question than Taylor swift giving an endorsement or advocating people go out and vote for Harris.
Ken will defend your right to shitposting until his dying breath, thank you for your service 🫡
I am very disappointed in Ken this episode. His characterization of Alito and Thomas in relation to the Missouri case is absolutely wrong; I'm not 100% sure about Alito, but Thomas has long held that the Supreme Court is constitutionally obligated to take cases where it has original jurisdiction, far longer than Trump has been on the scene. Ken clearly knows this as shown by his statement that "dissents have occasionally been filed". Yeah, mainly filed by Thomas and Alito!
I get it, Ken doesn't like either Alito or Thomas. He might even think that they're partisan hacks that can't be trusted to fairly judge anything. But that doesn't mean he should be a partisan hack in return.
Lame.
You are both reading tea leaves in interpreting a two sentence order.
Claiming that Ken is a hack, and you have the one true interpretation is more than a mite arrogant.
The claim that Ken's hackery is "proven" by Ken's statement that "dissents have occasionally been filed" is particularly ludicrous. First of all, assuming that Ken has an encyclopedic knowledge of original action denial dissents is is a Mr. Fantastik level reach.
It also doesn't make any sense as a matter of logic. If Thomas takes the position that the Court should always take these cases, he would always dissent, as opposed to "occassionally" dissenting.
Please simmer down and have a nice cup of warm milk.
For someone lecturing about arrogant interpretations, you seem to have a bit of it yourself. First, I am not interpreting a two sentence order; I'm interpreting a roughly 10 minute section of a podcast discussing a two sentence order and a longer dissent. Second, Thomas does, in fact, file a dissent in each of these cases that aren't taken; that's how I know that Ken knows. If I, a pure layman, know that much, I would hope that someone who comments on these issues professionally would know at least as much. If he doesn't then he shouldn't really be commenting on it.
I would be more willing to give Ken the benefit of the doubt if he didn't insinuate multiple times that Thomas and Alito are in the tank for Trump. Acknowledging that this has been one of Thomas's pet issues for decades would cut against that narrative.
I don't think Ken is a partisan hack; if I did, I wouldn't be subscribed. I do think his part in that section could be described as "hackish".
I just think that there's the possibility that everyone involved here, including the justices of the supreme court, the podcast host, and the podcast commentators, may be somewhat arrogant.
This may be a podcast by, for, and of the arrogant, that hackery may not perish from the Internet.
Yeah, this is correct. I'm no fan of Thomas or Alito, and less seemingly every opinion. But Thomas has taken this attitude since forever. He has argued–and I on't disagree–that the Court is required to hear cases in which it has original jurisdiction.
There's a good episode of Advisory Opinions where Sarah Isgur and David French go into a lot of detail about this case in particular and the history of such cases, and Thomas' view. The fact it, it's a procedural sticking point that makes no difference in practice.
There is no shortage of stuff to go after Thomas and Alito about that's genuinely awful. In this particular case, Thomas may be wrong, stupid, or irrelevant, but he is ideologically consistent going back decades.
On the other hand, Ken took a swipe at an extremely powerful person who often uses his position for personal gain and the destruction of democratic norms. I'm not even the tiniest little bit upset that Ken whiffed this one time.
Regardless of your personal beef, this is funny considering the conservative justices' pearl clutching over how politically-motivated prosecutors (who could indict a ham sandwich) might grind the executive branch to a halt.
golf clap for the effortless correct usage of 'attorneys general'
Well, pluralism is the cornerstone of our system.
Ken, I suppose you're not a European lawyer so you can't comment on the merits of boxer Imane Khelif's suit against J.K. Rowling and Elon Musk? I'm pretty sure it would be meritless in the US but France has different laws.
I would also be very interested in hearing about that. I recall reading that the US has a law that basically says that US courts cannot enforce judgements from other nations that don't comply with the first amendment.
28 United States Code § 4102. For a more detailed discussion google "ken white defamation threat response letter" The first hit on the search provides a classic example of Ken's inimitable style.
J.K. Rowling and Elon Musk? That's an interesting pairing. It wouldn't seem to me like they run in the same circles
Obviously the rest of it was bogus, but I was sort of surprised "the local official isn't a statewide official" is a defense against a federal claim against the state as an entity. In the European system (both ECtHR and CJEU) a claim against a state encompasses all of its bodies, officials, and instrumentalities, regardless of its municipal law. It seems extremely reasonable to me that if you sue not the governor of New York, but New York itself, that an office created by the New York Constitution, elected by (a subset of) New York voters, enforcing New York's laws would be bound by any relief granted. Is there a reason for that narrower reach?
I'm unreasonably excited that Musk's case will be litigated in my home court (NDT-Dallas). I think I'll walk in to watch any in-person hearings.
Ken you made a reference to judge-shopping, patent cases, and the Federal Districting system. And since I'm not an attorney, don't have any expertise in Intellectual Property, and also not from East Texas, I figured I would be the perfect person to add a little color to your reference for all of the fine scholars in the comment section.
The Eastern District of Texas includes such notable cities as Tyler, Lufkin, Texarkana, Sherman. (To her a little fair, the Sherman Division includes two major Dallas suburbs, Plano and McKinney).
The Tyler, TX division is the most interesting because the city of Tyler, TX (pop. ~106,000) is *the second best place in the country* to find a judge sympathetic to your case. One particularly notable thing that Tyler, TX does not contain is the real presence of any company that has ever once file an IP lawsuit in the court.
It really seems kind of crazy because the vast majority of companies who are fighting with each other over patents are headquartered in California, incorporated in Delaware, and fighting about patents in a sleepy little town in East Texas.
There are about as many patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas–Tyler Division every year as there are total in any other state, except for the rest of Texas because the only district court that's more friendly to IP litigation than the Eastern District of Texas is the Western District of Texas (which includes the court Ken was talking about in this episode, the sprawling metropolis of Wichita Falls, pop. 102,000).
The whole situation is a fascinating display of shameless corruption. The judges in these small towns are absolute celebrities and enjoy the perks you get when you are solely responsible for bringing 10s of millions of dollars of commerce into a city that is otherwise just a place people grow up hoping to escape from.
I'm from a tiny little hovel just outside of Waco, and I have the requisite amount of pride. Texas is truly the greatest country in the United States. But our most prominent claims to being number 1 are executions and frivolous lawsuits.
I kinda feel like we could work on this. There's other stuff we should focus on being great at.
Lucky for Ken he'll get to talk about George Santos again next episode, both for his guilty plea in the criminal case and because the court dismissed his claims against Jimmy Kimmel.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.615855/gov.uscourts.nysd.615855.29.0.pdf
Can we set up a pool for subscribers to contribute towards getting Ken to buy a Cameo of him saying "It's Never RICO!" to celebrate? His rates have dropped dramatically!
Did the couchf+++er thing start on Twitter or Bluesky? Credit where it's due!
There is actually some really interesting YouTube that go into how it arrived. I am under the impression that the source material was in the original publication but not in subsequent ones in short... siting sources and their version is essential in a story like this however, as such I challenge thIe serious statement that it is false if it's based only on the most recent publications.
Thanks for addressing the Musk/Trump NLRB issue, which I had been wondering about after reading it. I’m wondering if you can comment on the recent developments with Dallas Black Dance Theater, which while not exactly national news, are exactly the kind of thing that is actually illegal. https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/performing-arts/2024/08/10/dallas-black-dance-theatre-fired-its-entire-company-of-dancers-according-to-union/
Long story short: the dancers unionized and then the company fired them all and put up an audition notice to replace them. (The company’s fig leaf justification is absurd.)
I know you’re not a labor lawyer, Ken, but what kind of penalty could result if/when the NLRB rules against the company? (I assume there’s no criminal statutes applicable here.)
Is there any mileage in what some people have been alleging about Musk's twitter space conversation with Trump being a campaign contribution?
None of the free advertising Trump got in 2016 or 2020 were campaign finance violations. Its probably not a campaign finance violation to host an interview, even if they only interview one side. The business interest is to entice viewership, which may be one sided. That it endorses and promotes the campaign is no different to the finance question than Taylor swift giving an endorsement or advocating people go out and vote for Harris.
Regular Taylor Swift or AI Taylor Swift?