That’s not what they said. They’re saying that if you make it a practice to avoid application of the 5th Amendment and its laws, that’s how you get tin-pot dictator justice.

Maybe we are speaking past each other. This was the critical holding below. So obviously in this case the Court found that the unconditional promise was made and that Cosby relied on it to his detriment of his constitutional rights.

He is. And fuck Cosby. However, predominantly fuck the prosecutor that created this constitutional issue.

Unfortunately, constitutional-violation BS.

Shitty outcome. But it’s not a procedural technicality.

OT: Jez has been *remarkably* quiet about the new Johnny Depp/Amber Heard news. It would be essentially journalistic malpractice to not write about it. Any reason for that, or is there an article in the pipeline? 

This is insanity. I swam competitively for 15 years in California. I can’t think of racing suits that weren’t several sizes too small by nature, even in a non-championship meet. Jolyn, Speedo, Arena, you name it -- all were extremely small so they wouldn’t be gathering water during practice or at a meet. 

Yup. Stupid fuckers like Shaun King who kept stoking up Bernie (and has been noticeably quiet after Kennedy’s retirement announcement) like it was Bernie or Bust, and then failing to throw support behind Hillary. People were so mother-fucking short sighted that they didn’t think that they could have terrible altered…

Meh. I’ve taken the high ground (and politically, so do Democrats, generally) for decades. It’s that high ground shit that got Trump elected. We were so busy quibbling with each other on Hillary vs Bernie that we failed to see that the Republicans would unite for a fuckshit like Trump like they always do.

I smell a helluva discrimination lawsuit coming up. Get fucked, St. Peters and Paul Catholic School. Good luck doing good work when you’re going to be paying out the ass in a judgment.

I still want to hold on to hope that Rey is a Skywalker. Maybe still a sister of Ben Solo.

I’m torn. I like Ta-Nehisi Coates and admire his intellect and works. Would I sing these words in the songs I like? Likely no. Would I vilify those that do? It’s hard to say, for me.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

Not true. There’s a lot of nuance there. E.g., usually has to be a contract involving necessities, etc. Although I’m no expert on every state, the premise that “it’s legal to sue minors in most states if they enter into contract” seems to be so broad that it is false on its face.

Repeated ad nauseum below, but that’s not how the law works. You cannot sue minors for breach of contract for something that’s not a necessity, e.g., food, etc., but that’s getting into neither the here nor there in this instance. Here, the general rule that the contract with the minor is invalid applies.

That’s not how precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis works. Grutter is still binding. Fisher did not overrule, nor distinguish, Grutter. IIRC, Fisher punted back to the lower courts to properly apply the strict scrutiny test.

Some do, some don’t. From what I’ve seen we tend to remember some more of the primary cases and principles highlighted in some of our classes, and in preparing for the bar exam. Probably also in our practice areas from what I’ve seen, after many many years experience, you tend to remember some of the seminal cases.…

Sorry to disappoint you, chief. Have my J.D.

That’s a pretty tenuous distinction. Grutter and Gratz discuss race based distinctions, generally, and using race as a factor.

Because, as any lawyer worth their salt knows (and I’m quite sure they are aware at Harvard Law), race-based admissions are generally legally acceptable under Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, a university can consider race, along with other soft variables (gender, age, military experience, work…