One difference between me and all 9 current justices is that, if I had been up there in a black robe when the lawyer said that, I would have well and truly lost my fucking mind.

Supreme Court arguments are lofty and boring, like when the lawyer for a top candidate for president is asked if we could prosecute a president afterwards for ordering HIS RIVAL’S ASSASSINATION, and the answer is gee guys, it depends, probably not.

“First bigotry, now lies: This judge pick deserves better.” The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has published this editorial. howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2024/04/25/#22…

Exactly

Unnecessary detail of any kind tires the reader, who wonders if they need to remember it, and distracts them from relevant detail. Sure, use dates where jurisdictionally relevant but not otherwise. You don't see a lot of '0n [date],' in John Roberts & Elena Kagan opinions.

And if the dates actually do matter to what the judges need to decide here, then don’t state winging dates at them until you’ve told them why they matter.

Let the record show that the most controversial piece of advice from the office training I gave yesterday on legal writing was “cut almost all the dates.”

Without revealing your age, who was your very first favorite MLB player?

👍

Fantastic work by United States Sentencing Commission eliminating the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing and recognizing the brain science around youthful offenders. This is an agency guided by science and respectful of the jury's role. You love to see it!

Honored to get to be part of this. Chester Hollman stole the show. And I got to finally meet Rachel Barkow in real life. Thanks Zimroth Center/NYU Crim Law.

“I have been a police officer in New Jersey for 20 years — as lieutenant, I am the highest-ranking officer of color in my department. Law enforcement is my life. And I am very proud to support the nomination of Adeel Mangi” NorthJersey.com

northjersey.com/story/opinion/…