@emptywheel @ErrataRob But again, that's her job. Otherwise, why take it? As for doing one's all for one's client…http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/04/scotus_drunk_driving_case_looks_good_for_the_drunk_drivers.html …
-
-
Replying to @KDbyProxy
@emptywheel@ErrataRob I don't mean it's her job to say THAT specifically. But if fair argument to say they didn't comply, she must make it.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KDbyProxy
@KDbyProxy@MJZwills might well have argued even NSA doesn't comply, as he did in 2008 not knowing FBI role or back door searches@ErrataRob1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@MJZwills@ErrataRob Like in Apple filings in SB case, I assume you saw comments that some Apple args were btr than others. 1/22 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KDbyProxy
@KDbyProxy Please tell me who you envision the amicus' client to be?@MJZwills@ErrataRob1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @KDbyProxy
@KDbyProxy One thing we DON'T know is whether he permitted her to consider 2 years of violations on directly relevant issues@ErrataRob1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@ErrataRob As to "Who is this amicus' client?"… I took my shot, but maybe post Q to ur twitterverse. I'd lk to see those replies1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KDbyProxy
@KDbyProxy Does it change given that he didn't appoint her under the clause you thought he had?@ErrataRob1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@ErrataRob U tweeted from the appointment Auth paragraph; I tweeted the Duties paragraph. Both in Section 401.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@KDbyProxy False. He appointed her under 2(B), not 2(A), as made clear in the cite from opinion. @ErrataRob
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.