Harvard Law Review SCOTUS Issue on Trump v. Vance: CJ Roberts "omitted discussion of the significant disagreements between the Framers involved in the Burr trial"

The Leading Case Note, and three other publications in the Supreme Court issue, cited my work.


Shortly after Trump v. Vance was decided, I published a SCOTUSBlog post and an essay on the Chief's majority opinion. In short, Roberts offered a "sanitized" account of Aaron Burr's treason trials. The Harvard Law Review Supreme Court issue published a Leading Case note about Vance. It relied on my work. (I am described as "one commentator.") Here is the excerpt:

Vance is particularly illustrative of these concerns, as the Court omitted discussion of the significant disagreements between the Framers involved in the Burr trial. One commentator has noted that Chief Justice Roberts "recounted a sanitized version of this seminal dispute,"92 as evidenced by three key omissions. First, the Court did not make it clear that Jefferson agreed to produce the requested documents before he was aware of the subpoena.93 Therefore, Jefferson was not complying with the subpoena, and one cannot infer that he recognized it as a legitimate use of judicial power.94 Second, Jefferson wrote in his letter to the prosecutor that he agreed "voluntarily to furnish on all occasions … *438 whatever the purposes of justice may require,"95 but the Court omitted the word "voluntarily" from its opinion,96 changing the tone of the phrase significantly and presenting Jefferson as much more amicable to the exercise of judicial power than he really was. Finally, though the Court acknowledged Jefferson's assertion that "[h]is 'personal attendance' … was out of the question,"97 it did not mention that the subpoena required Jefferson's presence and that, according to at least some interpreters, Jefferson "actively flouted the subpoena."98 In short, the originalist meaning of Burr is more complicated and nuanced than the Court's opinion in Vance may have suggested,99 partly because Jefferson and Marshall, two Founders, disagreed sharply on separation of powers issues.100 In retelling the story of Aaron Burr's trial, Chief Justice Roberts adhered to a more simplified understanding, presenting a story that supported the Court's result but was importantly incomplete.

92 Josh Blackman, Symposium: It Must Be Nice to Have John Marshall on Your Side, SCOTUSBLOG (July 10, 2020, 2:40 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/symposium-it-must-be-nice-to-have-john-marshall-on-your-side [https://perma.cc/2C8Y-MSME].

93 See Vance, 140 S. Ct. at 2423; Josh Blackman, Presidential Subpoenas During the Burr Trials 7 (July 9, 2020) (unpublished manuscript), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3647781 [https://perma.cc/4ALR-S6T4]. …

96 See Vance, 140 S. Ct. at 2423; see also Blackman, supra note 93, at 7 (emphasizing that "voluntarily" was the "key word"). . . .

98. Blackman, supra note 92. But see Yoo, supra note 94, at 1438 (finding "from the historical evidence that Jefferson did not defy a court's subpoena" but that he "refused to allow the courts the final say on [executive privilege]").

99. See Blackman, supra note 93, at 16; Yoo, supra note 94, at 1438, 1464.

I held off on submitting the Burr essay for publication this summer. I wanted to wait till the tax return litigation drew to a close. Now, it looks like those cases will fizzle out. This mention may be a new selling point for journals: you already have a citation in the Harvard Law Review Supreme Court issue, albeit as an unpublished manuscript. Stay tuned.

My work was also cited in three other features from the SCOTUS issue. First, in Tara Leigh Grove's article on Bostock.

Nevertheless, the dissents argued, the majority's holding was erroneous. The Court went awry in large part because it had an impoverished vision of the relevant context for textualism: the Court "ignor[ed] the social context in which Title VII was enacted."FN 108

FN108: . . . . ; see also Josh Blackman & Randy Barnett, Justice Gorsuch's Halfway Textualism Surprises and Disappoints in the Title VII Cases, NAT'L REV. (June 26, 2020, 6:30 AM), https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/justice-gorsuch-title-vii-cases-half-way-textualism-surprises-disappoints [https://perma.cc/3CDJ-Z7VE] (suggesting that "discriminat[ion] against" in Title VII must involve "bias or prejudice" against women or men, rather than against gay, lesbian, or transgender individuals);

Second, in Ganesh Sitaraman's article on Seila Law.

Commentators noted that Justice Kagan likely chose Clement in order to appeal to the Court's conservatives and depoliticize the case. After oral argument, however, some commentators suggested this tactic might have backfired, because of both Clement's style and his substance. FN291

FN291: Josh BlackmanThe CFPB Needed Better FriendsREASON: THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY (Mar. 4, 2020, 10:56 AM), https://reason.com/2020/03/04/the-cfpb-needed-better-friends [https://perma.cc/7AM3-YXYA].

Third, in the Leading Case note on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of New York:

But Justice Scalia also conceded that "[h]istorical analysis can be difficult" because it "sometimes requires resolving threshold questions, and making nuanced judgments about which evidence to consult and how to interpret it." FN71:

FN71: . . . Indeed, recent corpus linguistics research calls into question Justice Scalia's reliance on a narrow group of sources and resulting conclusions. See Josh Blackman & James C. Phillips, Corpus Linguistics and the Second Amendment, HARV. L. REV. BLOG (Aug. 7, 2018), https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/corpus-linguistics-and-the-second-amendment [https://perma.cc/F9EQ-VQ5T]

The 264-page Foreword, which had 2,517 footnotes, alas, did not cite me.

I continue to consider and reconsider the value of traditional legal scholarship, with its lengthy publication schedules. Here, my three blog posts and and unpublished essay were cited in the leading review of Supreme Court cases. Had I waited to publish in a law review, these ideas would may not have been cited.

NEXT: Guns and Juveniles

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I thought nothing could top Rudy Giuliani’s performance in Judge Brann’s courtroom.

    I was wrong.

    1. The very opacity of this post gies us clear insight into its meaning and importance and shows how vital it is to a discussion of the critical issues of the day. Oh wait . . . .And why couldn’t the judge Rudy was before say the immortal words, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means”.

      1. One could argue Rudy came closer with “opacity” — his definition could become reasonable with mere addition of a “not” — than he did with “strict scrutiny.”

        Knowing that Rudy Giuliani, Jason Miller, Steve Bannon, Jenna Ellis, and Boris Epshteyn are leading the Trump Campaign Litigation team gives me great comfort. Trump Campaign Litigation seems destined to be every bit as successful as Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks, Trump Foundation, Trump University, and Trump Casinos.

        1. The reaction of many when the news that the team listed above was the litigation force for Trump was “Oh, finally, Trump has conceded the election”.

          1. That’s close to what happened when Democratic lawyers heard the first report that Giuliani and Bondi were on the ground, with bullhorns, in Philadelphia.

    2. You performing in front of a mirror again, Mr Bickle?

    3. A self-fulfilling prophetic comment.

    4. And I used to have so much respect for Giuliani too. What a shame for an otherwise great career of public service to be ending like this.

      1. Maybe he doesn’t care, but it is interesting to reflect on how this is likely to affect his legacy. A decade ago he was America’s Mayor, a couple of years ago kind of a crank, but at this point he just looks downright incompetent.

        1. I have it on good authority that he does know what “moral suasion” means.

      2. I have to ask: why did you ever have respect for Giuliani? What about him deserved respect?

        1. Because he was the greatest mayor in the history of New York City?

          1. And the kind of guy who wears a World Series championship ring he never earned . . .

            1. He may well be a jerk (large numbers of ex-wives would indicate such), and he has obviously gone off the deep end mentally, but that does not take away from his transformation of NYC from 1992 to 2000. And that transformation (in terms of crime reduction) was focused almost solely on black and hispanic neighborhoods. The reason there is so much gentrification has happened in the ensuing 20 years is that Giuliani made those neighborhoods attractive (in terms of crime) again.

              1. Rather than debate Giuliani’s record on race, I merely observe that wearing that gaudy World Series ring marks him a jerk and a phony.

  2. Blackman selling harder than Professor Harold Hill.

    Trouble, oh we got trouble, Right here in River City! With a capital “T”
    That rhymes with “P”
    And that stands for Pool,

    1. Or, in this case, rhymes with fool.

  3. “See Blackman, supra note 93, at 16; Yoo, supra note 94, at 1438, 1464.”

    Unbelievably cursed footnote. If the best support for your assertion is Josh Blackman and John Yoo, that would be a good time to seriously reassess what it is you’re saying.

    1. Agreed. If pro-rape (as a form of interrogation) John Yoo is on your side . . .

  4. It shows the madness of “originalism”. Those “Framers” (at least those who were still around in 1807) had wildly different ideas on just about every aspect of the Constitution. If Scalia and his followers had ever consulted actual historians they would have realized this long ago.

    (And btw neither Jefferson nor Marshall was a “Framer”.)

    1. “(And btw neither Jefferson nor Marshall was a “Framer”.)”

      It’s close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and law office history.

  5. Seriously, though. Giuliani.

    I mean, the guy used to be a respected US Attorney. For SDNY.

    And … this? I mean, it’s really hard to make me feel sympathetic for someone who is actively damaging our country, but that was beyond embarrassing.

    “Normal scrutiny?”

    I can’t even.

    1. Holy crap, the President’s legal team has now embraced the secret US Army raid on a mysterious German server conspiracy theory!

      1. This is Trump’s argument: George Soros, Biden, the Clinton Foundation & the antifa worked with the Venezuelan government to rig the election by making big Dem cities vote for the Democratic candidate. But they also let Republicans win Senate, Congressional and local races.

        1. You forgot Dominion Resources. And I agree it is crazy.

          Please remember this next time you hear that the election was stolen by Diebold, Halliburton, the Koch Brother(s), Mark Zuckerberg, and a bunch of shady Russians.

          1. “election was stolen by Diebold, Halliburton, the Koch Brother(s), Mark Zuckerberg, and a bunch of shady Russians”

            History began this November for the left.

            1. Fucking deal with the present. Pay attention to the crazy nonsense happening right now and mediated by the President.

              What fringey Dems have said in the past does not make this Q-Anon mainstreaming by the leader of the GOP some costless action to be rationalized.

              1. I agree, but it is important to realize that this is a two-way street.

                1. No, it isn’t. Lunacy exists only on the fringe of the left but it is swallowing the right.

                  1. Do I need to post a video of Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Pilgrim State) going full John Nash during the the ACB hearings? How about picking through clues in Bret K’s high school yearbook to find out if he was leading a massive rape ring in the DC suburbs (Hey — maybe he was running it out of a pizza parlor in Bethesda! That would be the real smoking gun.)

                  2. “Lunacy exists only on the fringe of the left but it is swallowing the right.”

                    My side good, your side bad, as usual.

                    Who is the governor of Georgia these days?

                2. No. Like many attempts at whataboutism, you’re conflating two very different things. “I’d have won if things X, Y, and Z hadn’t happened” is very different than “I actually did win, but the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy, and the Jews stole the election.”

                  If Trump were making the argument that COVID cost him the election, that might be right or wrong, but not crazy. And if he blamed China for letting COVID become a global pandemic and thus costing him the election, that might be right or wrong, but not crazy. That’s the equivalent of what Hillary and her supporters did with respect to 2016.

                  The only thing comparable to what Trump’s doing now is the Diebold conspiracy theorizing of 2004, but (a) that was 16 years ago, and (b) still pretty fringe. It wasn’t pushed by the Democratic Party. Kerry wasn’t filing suits trying to overturn the election based on Diebold nonsense.

                  1. I don’t see a particularly meaningful distinction between:

                    1) I lost because voters who would otherwise have voted for me were tricked into voting for Trump due to a massive conspiracy involving the Trump Campaign, Vladimir Putin and Facebook; and

                    2) I lost because the Democrats switched a lot of votes by doing something with computers, and massively manipulated the mail-in ballots because my cousin’s friend heard another guy talking about it.

                    They are both nuts. The main difference is that Hillary had the slight sliver of decency to have her minions make the argument for her (although you can find some clips of her flying solo once the election was well past), rather than tweeting incessantly.

                    And if Obama had lost in either 2008 or 2012, I am very confident there would have had some Diebold-like theories, plus RACISM!

                    1. 1) That’s nowhere near the argument by the Dems. No conspiracy, no trickery just hacking. That you have to strawman that hard maybe should tell you something.

                      2) That’s also not what Trump is saying at the moment – did you see the press conference? Dominion Resources is part of it, but so is Venezuela and Soros.

                      You’re having to put words into your side’s mouth to moderate what they say and into the Dem’s mouths to make them seem more radical. That’s rationalization 101.

                      Y’all got a serious problem in the GOP at the moment. Name it, and work to make it better; quite pointing to the other side to ignore your own.
                      (Feel free to call us out when we do the same; but right now it’s you guys on the hot seat.)

                    2. @Sarc

                      I think you are misunderstanding my Example 2 — I am not trying to soft soap Trump’s arguments. They started out bad and are getting worse.

                      But you are having historical amnesia if you think the 2016 “controversy” was just about hacking. “Collusion” was the #1 Democratic talking point from the election through the release of the Mueller Report (and in many cases afterward).

                    3. But there actually was substantial communication between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and the Russians did try to help Trump get elected. Whether it rose to someone’s definition of “collusion” or not, whether it was decisive or not, it’s hardly an irrational to say things happened.

                      It’s irrational to deny it.

              2. “crazy nonsense”

                Everyone, and I mean everyone, on your side from Hillary on down pushed the bogus “the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming” nonsense for 4 years. Remember the “pee” tape?

                The “post office is stealing the election” stuff was only this summer dude. They had House hearings on it, speaking of mainstreaming nonsense.

                Its awful convenient that conspiracy theories are now a threat to the republic.

                Spare me your convenient outrage.

                1. I had already forgotten about the great Post Office Caper of 2020.

                2. Remember pictures of giant piles of mailboxes?

                  1. oh and COURT ORDERS that the post office deliver the mail.

                3. The fact is that DeJoy did in fact take steps that had the effect of slowing down mail delivery. Do you deny that?

                  And the fact is that it was widely expected that many more Democrats than Republicans would use mail-in ballots, so delays, which, recall, Trumpistas tried, and are still trying, to capitalize on, would in fact suppress Democratic votes.

                  And the fact is that the Post Office did warn election officials that they could not rely on timely delivery – and Republicans responded by limiting, in Texas, dropboxes to one per county.

                  So don’t pretend there weren’t efforts to suppress mail-in votes.

                  1. “Do you deny that? ”

                    Yes. Routine actions coated with dark motives is a basic tenant of conspiracy theories.

                    1. Except no routine explanation was ever given. There was no reason to suddenly disassemble previously working auto sorting machines. You think the USPS union just makes things up? Funny, I never even heard of their union before DeJoy.

                      This is incredibly transparent. Anyone who denies is irrational, ignorant, or dishonest.

                    2. “You think the USPS union just makes things up?”

                      A union that endorsed Biden? Of course its impossible that he lied then.

                      Unions and mangement can be at odds. Shocking I’m sure.

                      “I never even heard of their union before DeJoy.”

                      Sure, just like you cannot name any postmaster general before DeJoy. Some goof started the conspiracy theory, media piled on, and you fell for it.

                4. Everyone, and I mean everyone, on your side from Hillary on down pushed the bogus “the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming” nonsense for 4 years

                  Where “everyone” includes the Senate Intelligence Committee. Not bogus, Bob.

                  1. Some face book ads. Oooh scary.

                    Yes, bogus. Mere appeal to authority by you.

                    1. Appeal to authority? What’s wrong with appealing to the report of a Senate Committee, chaired by a Republican, which conducted a lengthy investigation?

                      What are you appealing to besides the usual Trumpist denialism? You have better information? From who? Giuliani?

                    2. So seth rich hacked both parties servers, then coordinated with wikileaks to only release the D party emails?

                      No, that was Roger Stone. Read the final senate intel report on it. Collusion happened. Once again, there is no denying it at this point, if you are honest and informed.

                    3. Stone coordinated the release. Guccifer 2.0 did the hack, as confirmed by all of our intel agencies and a couple NATO ones too.

                      Again, read the reports, not the summaries, not the federalist’s articles on it.

                    4. “Stone coordinated the release. ”

                      look Bernard, you are getting some back up on this

                      He conspired with someone who hacked servers and “coordinated the release” yet he was only indicted on “witness tampering, obstructing an official proceeding, and five counts of making false statements”, not any substantive crimes.

                      Sure sure…

                      Stop reading The Intercept.

                    5. Bob, that is actually what Stone did.

        2. Really?

          Where are you seeing this?

          1. At his noon ‘release the kraken’ press conference. Flynn’s defense attorney went after Rudy, spinning some serious QAnon into these election fraud arguments.

            1. I just read about it here.

              I really think the Trumpists, including conspirators, ought to take a few minutes to do the same and see who and what they are making common cause with.

              These people are first of all insane and second, seem to be trying to actually pull off a coup. Why is Trump meeting with MI legislative leaders tomorrow?

              It really is time for this shit to stop, and for more than one or two Republicans to take a stand against this madness.

              1. GOP is the party of treason and corruption. And they spend more than Democrats. At this point, why would anyone, conservatives included, vote for them?

  6. No open thread this Thursday! I only just noticed. Crazy morning.

    1. Just use this Blackman post for the open thread.

      That means that finally, a Blackman post might have some use.

      1. Every Blackman post is useful.

        They depict the future of movement conservative legal academia.

  7. Taking loki’s idea of open threadding this…uh, thing.

    This is the time of year I start thinking about charitable giving. I generally divide my charity budget 3 ways, in decreasing order of magnitude:

    1) Worldwide good (generally Doctors without Borders)

    2) US political good (I try and stay away from partisan on this one. EFF is where I gave last year. This year I dunno yet. Probably some vote registering group)

    3) Fee-for-service. Podcasts, webcomics, vidya games, and other such free but can donate fun things that I have enjoyed.

    What are you guys doing charity-wise this year?

    1. Great question!

      In true Grinch fashion, I outsource it. 🙂

      My firm does a lot of charitable donations right now (we are a big fish in a relatively small community), and as one of the partners, my job is basically to say, “Yep.”

      And for personal giving, I let my spouse handle it.

      The third category is I will do local appeals when they come to me. Usually it’s something along the lines of a local kid needs assistance with medical care costs.

    2. I frontloaded a lot of my giving this year and pushed it to places that seemed well positioned to help people in the US suffering as a result of the pandemic (GiveDirectly, some of the hospitality industry relief funds).

      The bulk of my giving usually goes to your #1, since that’s the best bang-for-buck from an effective altruism perspective. I’ll probably go back and do more of this at the end of the year since it wasn’t a focus earlier, along with taking a look at local institutions (arts, etc.) that are struggling with a lack of revenue–but that will be the smallest slice of the pie.

      But overall, my giving will be way up this year. I’m basically emptying out my DAF since it seems like the kind of year when it’s dumb to be deferring giving into the future when so many people and institutions need help right now.

      1. May I ask who do you use for your DAF? I use Fidelity (low fees).

        1. I mostly use Schwab, but also had a stub a Vanguard (where I keep most of my investments since I’m a boring Boglehead-type investor) from the year where I waited until December 30th or something before realizing that I wanted to move some more appreciated assets into a DAF. Both of them are pretty low fee, although I like the Schwab UI quite a bit more since it’s more integrated with their other brokerage/banking services.

          1. My, my…a fellow Boglehead investor! 🙂

            1. a fellow Boglehead investor!

              By which you mean a person who is sensible about investments.

    3. I do a fair amount of #1, but also put emphasis on giving to local charities. Because they are smaller they sometimes don’t look quite as good on metrics about expenses and so on, but they do a lot of good work and I feel like the marginal dollar may do more good there.

      I also suspect, without knowing, that they have less access to institutional donors.

      One thing I have done is up my contribution to the local food bank. People shouldn’t be going hungry.

      1. Yeah, something about local good would not go amiss, especially this year. I’m not much of a utilitarian, and the virtue of looking to your own area is not a bad one.
        I volunteer at Shepard’s Table. That might find it’s way into my mix this year.

      2. Marginal dollar is an important consideration. A lot of charitable giving that pivots to the “cause of the moment” ends up being really ineffective because there’s no way for the charities to effectively use all the money that’s dumped on them. The classic example of this is all the giving that goes to places like the Red Cross when there’s a big natural disaster–almost none of that is useful for the disaster in question, although they sure act like it does in their fundraising appeals. This is one reason I like Doctors Without Borders a lot more than the Red Cross–they’re a lot more honest in their fundraising.

        This made it pretty hard to try and figure out how to give money for Coronavirus relief, since a lot of the organizations asking for money didn’t look obviously capable of scaling up in the face of the problem. This is part of the reason I’m now funneling a lot of giving through GiveDirectly–distributing cash is a lot more scalable than a lot of charitable work and also can get to people without having to manage central supply chains, etc.

      3. My contributions in descending order are:

        1) My high school — it is an all-scholarship school with a relatively low endowment, so it depends on annual alumni donations for 40-50% of its annual operating budget.
        2) Parish church
        3) Local food bank
        4) Little Sisters of the Poor — it is too bad that they are known primarily for the Obamacare controversy, because their mission of assisting the destitute elderly is very compelling
        5) Thanksgiving in a Box — each $40 donation buys a full thanksgiving meal for a local needy family.
        6) Special Olympics
        7) Higher-brow things that my wife and/or I enjoy like the NY Botanical Gardens, Metropolitan Museum etc.

    4. Sarcastr0…What a great topic (charity)! Thank you.

      My shul will get the most of any charity. This year I will be making a generous donation to my Rabbi’s tzadekah fund in memory of my mother-in-law who died from Covid-19. The money is to be exclusively used for the poor, the sick, the widow, the orphan, or the bride who has no veil. Additional proceeds will go toward purchasing a small plaque in her name. I miss her a lot. She was (still sounds strange to say that) quite a remarkable woman. I will never forget her.

      Next up, my Masonic lodge always gets an annual contribution from Yours Truly. The Almoner’s Fund helps Masonic brothers in need with direct cash contributions (medical equipment, food, medicine, etc).

      You’ll laugh at the next one. This year, Right Side Broadcasting will receive a charitable contribution from Yours Truly. Leaving aside the politics, the crew they had (a lot of Zoomers, not Boomers) did a wonderful job covering the campaign, interviewing people. Really, those kids were good; especially the Armenian elementary school teacher. Completely unscripted. Sometimes hilarious. They get some geld.

      Goodwill Industries and Habitat for Humanity received cash and items. For example, we donated a ‘almost brand new’ Craftsman table saw (used a total of 3 times) to Habitat for Humanity. Wife cleaned out stuff, and that all went to Goodwill.

      Finally, I went local, not global. In my town, some local charities (most run by churches in town) received money as well. Not a lot, but enough to tide them over for a while.

      Great topic. I loved reading the different charities and causes people donate to. It gives me ideas. Doctors Without Borders will make my list for 2021.

    5. In terms of significant giving (there’s always a friend or family member running a Facebook fundraiser during the year that I’ll throw $36 at or whatever; I’m not counting that), I always split mine in three ways, too:

      1) Helping the needy in one form or the other. Some of this goes to my Temple (which uses it for such help), some goes to organizations that provide direct help like feeding people or giving scholarships.

      2) Medical. I only give to organizations that either do research or that provide assistance to people suffering from something (like families of cancer patients or the like). No organizations that focus on “awareness,” which is IMO about 95% scam.

      3) Causes. Organizations like the IJ. This is hard because so many of these organizations veer off in unfortunate directions. I used to give to the ACLU, but since they decided they wanted to be a Liberal Causes organization instead of a civil liberties organization, I can’t support them. Used to give to the 501(c)(3) parts of the NRA, but, you know, crooks. IJ hasn’t disappointed me so far.

    6. That is a pretty cool question. I have been giving to 3 charities for years now. Skateistan. Index on Censorship. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. I’ve toyed with giving to Heterodox Academy, but have yet to do so.

  8. In our area we have a group called ‘Working Wheels’ which takes donations of cars, rehabs them and r sells them for $500 to low income families that need basic transportation.the buyers get a fully rehabbed car with a warranty, usually the car has a FMV of $5,000 or more.

    You would be amazed at how much good this does. It enables a family to get to work, to take kids to activities, to drive to school and to feel that they are part of the community making it largely on their own.

    1. That’s a very good thought – if you want to build capacity and not just mitigate harm, transportation and communication are clutch.

      I’ll look for something like that in my area.

    2. This sounds like a good idea.

      1. “In short, Roberts offered a “sanitized” account. . . .” Deplorable. Practicing lawyers are severally chastised (and rightly so) by lower court judges for exactly this kind of deception.

        Those here that like the result have changed the subject and are virtue signaling. Surprise, surprise!

    3. I’ve found a small or medium-sized business on this model nearly everywhere I’ve been. Some are a bit sketchy, like many a non-profit, but many are legit and in the end, as long as someone actually in need gets a functional vehicle, that’s what counts.

    4. Sidney…it is a small world. I’ll be in the Asheville area next week (within 60 minutes), traveling for the holiday. I’ll make a point of checking it out, and seeing if there is an affiliate near my home base.

  9. That was one hell of a “press conference” conducted by the Trump campaign’s “elite strike force.”

    Rudy Giuliani seemed to be genuinely melting as he ranted . . . was that blood dripping from his temples?

    Sydney Powell is a drawling pile of right-wing conspiracy fantasies. Communists, Soros, Venezuela . . . I couldn’t keep up with her weepy lurches.

    And Jenna Ellis, the highlight, seems precisely the type of person who calls herself a “law professor” after teaching a few undergraduate courses at a yahoo factory such as Colorado Christian and “Dr. Ellis” because she somehow collected a juris doctor degree. She also has the predictable social skills of someone homeschooled by religious kooks (yelling ‘you obviously do not understand our legal system’ because they asked for evidence at a press conference featuring dozens of crackpot accusations).

    How did Josh Blackman avoid a spot in that lineup?

    1. Not certain you should talk about social skills, Kirkland. You clearly find yourself intelligent and witty…

      1. This is where being on the spectrum limits your effectiveness, Hank.

    2. “Dr. Ellis” because she somehow collected a juris doctor degree.

      You know, the whole “juris doctor” business is BS. I remember when law schools awarded LL. B. s or something – Bachelor of Laws. That seems more appropriate, and less pretentious.

      To me, a doctorate is a research degree, not something that says you spent three years in a trade school.

      1. Yeah, but the issue is that the degree is for people who already have a bachelor’s degree, so an LLB was seen as incorrect.

Please to post comments