UMG explains to Drake what a rap battle is; several of Trump's executive actions are stymied in the courts; Nancy Mace enjoys the protection of the speech or debate clause.
You keep referring to this as “the lawyer’s prerogative to choose their clients,” as if anyone gives a fart about protecting lawyers. The concern is that the public —- the would-be clients — are harmed if they don’t have the ability to choose skilled lawyers who know which end is up and have ethics (I.e., could never be hired to work in the Trumpenreich). That’s why we have rules against lawyers cutting settlement deals with rich defendants that would limit the plaintiff lawyers’ practice in the future … it’s not because anyone likes lawyers, but because if we want an adversarial justice system with any semblance of integrity, the clients forced to play have to be able to choose any licensed attorney to represent them, not just the ones the current junta likes for their opponents to have.
We have dozens of significant lawsuits pending dealing with actual meaningful issues. They may not be as interesting, cute or funny as the Drake and whoever thing, but come on! Deal with real issues. Who is setting the agenda for the show now?
Obviously not all legal news can be covered in a weekly podcast like this, and I would much rather listen to Ken and Josh talk about cases (a) that interest them and (b) where they can contribute something to the conversation. Ken's personal and professional interest in the First Amendment/defamation make the Drake case both interesting to him and something he can opine about, both of which makes for a more interesting show. The fact that it's an amusing story is icing on the cake.
I don't need a paid subscription to hear Ken and Josh note the existence of other lawsuits already reported in the media just because they deal with more "meaningful issues", nor would it be reasonable to expect Ken to provide knowledgeable opinion into every area of law that touches on whatever issue you personally consider to be more meaningful - unless you want to start paying Ken's hourly rate rather than $6/month.
I 100% agree. Not a single mention on this podcast of the Tasha K v. Cardi B defamation settlement. How do you ignore the most important legal news in the United States right now? Who cares about diss tracks when we have momentous stories about alleged venereal disease?
In the face of dozens of lawsuits aimed at trying to staunch the bleeding from all the wounds inflicted by this administration, sometimes it's nice to have a little fun. I appreciated the Drake thing as something to try and lift the mood before they dove into heavier fare.
Personally I enjoy the mix of serious and not-so-serious topics. I will also say that this is the only break I get from doom-scrolling about the Trump Administration's latest buffoonery (I call it buffoonery recognizing the danger their actions pose to anyone who does not see it coming).
However, because Ken White is so reasoned with his analysis, I would prefer more substance on the Trump Administration's actions, their effects, and the path forward. He can be the champion the Democratic party needs. (I hope that made Ken cringe as much as it made me cringe to say it).
Musk is falsely claiming that a woman named Valerie Costa who has protested at Tesla dealerships is funded by the online platform ActBlue and has stated "Costa is committing crimes." This has of course led to a huge amount of harassment and stalking from the fanboys and she is worried she will be targeted by the feds. Is this enough grounds for a defamation case?
Nobody seems to think that this isn't really an assault on the First Amendment, but just a shakedown. Paul Weiss can stay in business now, but Trump won't have to pay legal fees in the lawsuits he's planning to file. ABC News has their freedom of speech back, but they have to make a contribution to the Trump Shrine.
Apparently there's 1770 spots, some of which are unfilled at any given time. However, each district judge is assigned a specific district, there's not that many judges per district, and a lot of the relevant cases are brought in a small number of districts.
You keep referring to this as “the lawyer’s prerogative to choose their clients,” as if anyone gives a fart about protecting lawyers. The concern is that the public —- the would-be clients — are harmed if they don’t have the ability to choose skilled lawyers who know which end is up and have ethics (I.e., could never be hired to work in the Trumpenreich). That’s why we have rules against lawyers cutting settlement deals with rich defendants that would limit the plaintiff lawyers’ practice in the future … it’s not because anyone likes lawyers, but because if we want an adversarial justice system with any semblance of integrity, the clients forced to play have to be able to choose any licensed attorney to represent them, not just the ones the current junta likes for their opponents to have.
I believe you meant to say "Mike Davis, who is this complete wackadoodle right-wing lawyer *and former Neil Gorsuch clerk*"
We have dozens of significant lawsuits pending dealing with actual meaningful issues. They may not be as interesting, cute or funny as the Drake and whoever thing, but come on! Deal with real issues. Who is setting the agenda for the show now?
Obviously not all legal news can be covered in a weekly podcast like this, and I would much rather listen to Ken and Josh talk about cases (a) that interest them and (b) where they can contribute something to the conversation. Ken's personal and professional interest in the First Amendment/defamation make the Drake case both interesting to him and something he can opine about, both of which makes for a more interesting show. The fact that it's an amusing story is icing on the cake.
I don't need a paid subscription to hear Ken and Josh note the existence of other lawsuits already reported in the media just because they deal with more "meaningful issues", nor would it be reasonable to expect Ken to provide knowledgeable opinion into every area of law that touches on whatever issue you personally consider to be more meaningful - unless you want to start paying Ken's hourly rate rather than $6/month.
Ken/Josh - you do you, boo.
I 100% agree. Not a single mention on this podcast of the Tasha K v. Cardi B defamation settlement. How do you ignore the most important legal news in the United States right now? Who cares about diss tracks when we have momentous stories about alleged venereal disease?
In the face of dozens of lawsuits aimed at trying to staunch the bleeding from all the wounds inflicted by this administration, sometimes it's nice to have a little fun. I appreciated the Drake thing as something to try and lift the mood before they dove into heavier fare.
With all the unprecedented legal actions pertaining to the current administration, I'm really disappointed in the topic of this podcast episode.
Personally I enjoy the mix of serious and not-so-serious topics. I will also say that this is the only break I get from doom-scrolling about the Trump Administration's latest buffoonery (I call it buffoonery recognizing the danger their actions pose to anyone who does not see it coming).
However, because Ken White is so reasoned with his analysis, I would prefer more substance on the Trump Administration's actions, their effects, and the path forward. He can be the champion the Democratic party needs. (I hope that made Ken cringe as much as it made me cringe to say it).
Hey there - since what is and isn't defamation is such a popular topic, how about this one?
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5328626/elon-musk-protests-tesla-takedown
Musk is falsely claiming that a woman named Valerie Costa who has protested at Tesla dealerships is funded by the online platform ActBlue and has stated "Costa is committing crimes." This has of course led to a huge amount of harassment and stalking from the fanboys and she is worried she will be targeted by the feds. Is this enough grounds for a defamation case?
You guys were having waaaay too much fun with the Drake thing....
If this is really a rap battle, may we assume that Kendrick Lamar has said equally bad things about Drake? Fill us in on those.
What do you think of Paul Weiss’ capitulation?
Nobody seems to think that this isn't really an assault on the First Amendment, but just a shakedown. Paul Weiss can stay in business now, but Trump won't have to pay legal fees in the lawsuits he's planning to file. ABC News has their freedom of speech back, but they have to make a contribution to the Trump Shrine.
So….
Just how many federal judges are there? I keep hearing all these names I know.
Are there just not that many judges?
Or have I been following Ken too long?
Apparently there's 1770 spots, some of which are unfilled at any given time. However, each district judge is assigned a specific district, there's not that many judges per district, and a lot of the relevant cases are brought in a small number of districts.