Mike Lindell's defense is that he believed his own bullshit; law firms that settled with Trump are losing some lawyers and (maybe) some business; it's hard to sue a university under Title VI.
Hi guys - there's an aspect to the Harvard Law Review situation that you didn't cover. There could be editorial reasons to assign/solicit/whatever articles about certain subjects to people of specific identities due to historic effects of the subject under question, because their identity-specific perspective may not be adequately represented in the extant literature; or that people sharing their identity have historically been subject to inequitable impact; etc. Without knowing the details I can't say that this is what's going on, but I'd argue that in the abstract, it would be a First Amendment right of the editor or publication to apply these criteria when choosing authors. This also side-steps any contention that it's about supposed quotas. Instead, one is selecting authors for specific expertise that only someone with the identity in question could possess.
This is fat too rational for the current administration. Obviously, these POC stole spots in the Harvard Law Teview that rightfully belonged to while, male authors. /s
I know I know. You don't do emergency podcasts. But I still wish we got some off the cuff and thoughtless comments about you know what. Now I have to wait till next week. And what if you decide it's not legal enough! OH NO!
Is it defamation to say the president is in the Epstein files? Would a president who potentially might be sue and open up discovery? Is being in the report enough of a statement of fact to be defamatory, or is the underlying implication?
So much legal that can only be answered by a podcast segment.
As a long time listener I'm going to guess Ken says no, it's not even close to defamation. Even though it's not a rap beef this seems like Kendrick and Lamar situation. Can we place bets on this? I think we should be able to place bets and winners get a discount membership and looses have to pay more . . . way more.
1) The suit against Penn was not the first one in which the judge dismissed and chastised the plaintiffs for 100s of ¶s of "antisemitism is bad" irrelevance. A different judge on the ED Pa dismissed a similar against Haverford College with the same command to stick to relevant facts in January.
2) As to Harvard Law Review: The relevant statute as to article-selection decisions should be § 1981, which prohibits discrimination because of race in contracting, perhaps subject to some 1st Amendment exceptions for speech.
On the other hand you had Harvard, NYU, and Columbia settled lawsuits that were proceeding. And you had a judge chastising the school in the cooper union case that i believe is still proceeding and in that case the court found the harassment to meet the standard of severe and pervasive
Going forward, there needs to be be some way for Universities to figure out how to discriminate against the class tattletales and backstabbers.
There's a certain class of odious dweeb who is just smart enough to get into an elite institution like Harvard. Yet they totally despise the place and do nothing except try to tear it down and screw over their classmates. They get their rocks off on having student orgs shut down, events cancelled, other students disciplined, professors audited, etc. It's reminiscent of the cultural revolution in China.
You dont need to invite these losers to the party in the first place! Universities (law schools especially) should try to weed these people out in the admissions process.
No mention of Girardi paying for a judge’s cosmetic surgery that he was having an affair with?
I knew this podcast was going to lose its zing sooner or later.
Justice may be blind, but it can still feel contours.
THANKS FOR NON-MUSK/DRUMPF CONTENT!!
Great analysis as always.
Hi guys - there's an aspect to the Harvard Law Review situation that you didn't cover. There could be editorial reasons to assign/solicit/whatever articles about certain subjects to people of specific identities due to historic effects of the subject under question, because their identity-specific perspective may not be adequately represented in the extant literature; or that people sharing their identity have historically been subject to inequitable impact; etc. Without knowing the details I can't say that this is what's going on, but I'd argue that in the abstract, it would be a First Amendment right of the editor or publication to apply these criteria when choosing authors. This also side-steps any contention that it's about supposed quotas. Instead, one is selecting authors for specific expertise that only someone with the identity in question could possess.
This is fat too rational for the current administration. Obviously, these POC stole spots in the Harvard Law Teview that rightfully belonged to while, male authors. /s
Oh, sure. This was more aimed at Josh's equating editorial decision-making to job-hiring, which is similar but different in this respect.
I know I know. You don't do emergency podcasts. But I still wish we got some off the cuff and thoughtless comments about you know what. Now I have to wait till next week. And what if you decide it's not legal enough! OH NO!
Is it defamation to say the president is in the Epstein files? Would a president who potentially might be sue and open up discovery? Is being in the report enough of a statement of fact to be defamatory, or is the underlying implication?
So much legal that can only be answered by a podcast segment.
As a long time listener I'm going to guess Ken says no, it's not even close to defamation. Even though it's not a rap beef this seems like Kendrick and Lamar situation. Can we place bets on this? I think we should be able to place bets and winners get a discount membership and looses have to pay more . . . way more.
But thanks for making it clear this IS a legal thing and Ken and Josh probably should cover it.
We need a podcast under emergency conditions.
1) The suit against Penn was not the first one in which the judge dismissed and chastised the plaintiffs for 100s of ¶s of "antisemitism is bad" irrelevance. A different judge on the ED Pa dismissed a similar against Haverford College with the same command to stick to relevant facts in January.
2) As to Harvard Law Review: The relevant statute as to article-selection decisions should be § 1981, which prohibits discrimination because of race in contracting, perhaps subject to some 1st Amendment exceptions for speech.
On the other hand you had Harvard, NYU, and Columbia settled lawsuits that were proceeding. And you had a judge chastising the school in the cooper union case that i believe is still proceeding and in that case the court found the harassment to meet the standard of severe and pervasive
Going forward, there needs to be be some way for Universities to figure out how to discriminate against the class tattletales and backstabbers.
There's a certain class of odious dweeb who is just smart enough to get into an elite institution like Harvard. Yet they totally despise the place and do nothing except try to tear it down and screw over their classmates. They get their rocks off on having student orgs shut down, events cancelled, other students disciplined, professors audited, etc. It's reminiscent of the cultural revolution in China.
You dont need to invite these losers to the party in the first place! Universities (law schools especially) should try to weed these people out in the admissions process.