@KDbyProxy Hard to get a meaningful answer as 95% of commentary--both expert and TradMed--on amicus has not made 2(A) 2(B) distinction.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel As u noted, there was no 2(A)-qualified person at that time. And so it appears judge appointed a 2(A) person using 2(B).2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @KDbyProxy
@KDbyProxy You assumed she was appointed w/certain duties, and pointed to non-applicable clause in law rather than instructions in opinion1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KDbyProxy
@KDbyProxy Nope. Assumed. Rather than actually referring to the opinion which laid it out (as have the others that appointed 2(B)s.
3:11 PM - 22 Apr 2016
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
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.