I can't decide if this is sarcasm or what, let alone what the purpose of this tweet is.
OK. I don’t get it. Perhaps we are using precedent in two very different ways.
-
-
Likely. We don’t encounter this kind of miscommunication that often. I’m sure I was applying a political context to a legal scenario in which it didn’t really apply.
-
I know! I’m very confused!
-
And I wasn’t saying that I think you think those things. I was saying that’s how I read your comment — which is why I was confused, because I know you DON’T think those things.
-
YOU GUYS NEED TO WORK THIS OUT BECAUSE I FOLLOW BOTH OF YOU AND I NEED TO KNOW WHO'S THE GOOD GUY AND WHO'S THE BAD GUY!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes. You're using it correctly. Noah is using it to mean license for policy-making from the bench that may be untethered entirely from established legal logic.
-
“Bench” applies broadly in this case as it’s not in reference to the judiciary, but yes generally that’s how I was using it. Don’t think that’s exactly incorrect, but it is distinct.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.