Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

On the Circuit side:

I entered my Circuit clerkship not understanding how notorious judges like Kozinski could fill the time. I left my Circuit clerkship kind of getting it.

The work of an active Circuit judge is fixed. If a particular judge wants, however, he or she has more than ample room to go completely overboard. Full write-ups of every single circulating opinion for en-banc treatment? Full-on merits memos on every single case? Obsessive chewing and re-chewing of all in-chambers work-product? Full cite-checking/record-verifying of every single opinion circulated by every other judge on a given panel, along with full memos? Involvement of clerks in day-to-day motions decisions, including vetting opinions emanating from the Circuit's Staff Attorney office? A chambers policy of having opinions in unargued cases ready to go even before the case's submission date and of having opinions in argued cases ready to go within 3 weeks?

We did some of these, but not all of them, and not on everything. But a determined Circuit judge can hit enough of these buttons to create a ton of work out of what another, more laid-back chambers could "do" in half the time.

(And there is some merit to the obsessive approach! There are tons of mistakes that I happened to catch in other chambers' work-product that would never have made it out of a pressure-cooker environment. But Kozinski hours would've killed me seventeen times over.)

[Anonymous User]

I worked for a very hard-working SDNY judge. They went through many drafts of everything that went out the door, preferred more detailed facts sections than what most people would consider best practices, generally did written opinions over ruling from the bench, and disliked ruling summarily except on like extension requests, so e.g. no “the parties are well aware of the facts”-type short opinions that I’d see a lot of from other chambers. The SDNY workload is also just high in general, and a lot of the people who get appointed probably come in as confirmed workaholics. And the SDNY magistrates are also overworked so delegating a ton to them isn’t a great idea.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, the summary vs. detailed order thing is big, and judges range a lot in what they think are the right proportions of those.

(Not SDNY of course, but I always get so disappointed when I find what looks like it should be an awesome 2d Cir. case on an issue, and open it up to find one of those 3-paragraph summary decisions that doesn't give me enough information to help at all. But I always figured, it's the 2d Circuit, they don't have time actually to help me out.)

[lavarman84]

Have heard Perez's clerks are working biglaw-plus hours. YMMV with her first year.

Knowing her somewhat personally, I have nothing but nice things to say about her as a person. That being said, I can definitely see her expecting long hours from her clerks, given that she basically worked big law hours while at Brennan (on top of other commitments like being an adjunct) and really pushed hard those who worked for her. I'd describe her as lovely and kind, but also intense and demanding.

Perez is great (coming from someone that doesn't agree with her politically at all). I wouldn't read too much into long hours right now though, it's pretty common among new judges, and you should expect growing pains for all of them.

Perez aside, does anyone know why hours can vary so wildly between judges on the same district or circuit, even if the judges are doing similar jobs (i.e., comparable numbers of dissents, all circulating memos)? I'm aware of several judges that have similar responsibilities, and some of them work their clerks like dogs, but don't seem to produce significantly more, or better, work. Am I missing something? Is it purely hazing?

At the circuit level, I would say distrust of work product from outside of chambers. If you work for a judge who doesn't have that issue, you can have a pretty chill existence, especially in a circuit that shares bench memos. If you work for a judge who does have that issue, you're likely going to work longish hours.

[Anonymous User]

I clerked for a judge who handled the hardest and easiest motions entirely on his own, and left everything in the middle to me and my co-clerks. That was a great experience.

[Anonymous User]

I clerked for a judge who handled the hardest and easiest motions entirely on his own, and left everything in the middle to me and my co-clerks. That was a great experience.

That sounds awesome. You should share the Judge

[lavarman84]

Yeah, I missed that it was a text, which is a little different from an e-mail, but it still just seems remarkably unsavvy.

Maybe it's part of growing up in the South, but I've found that white people say some very "unsavvy" shit when they think they're speaking privately and surrounded by likeminded people. That includes educated white people. But again, I'm not saying Clanton did it. At this point, there are only a few people who truly know, and I'm not one of them.

I don't disagree with this at all, but I would think there would be a slightly bigger gulf between speaking and writing. (Though again, my take is colored a little by misreading it as an e-mail to start with.)

And to be clear, I'm not claiming to know what happened either. I think getting a bunch of people to cover up for the alleged statements is less plausible than one person doing something weird, but I absolutely don't know the truth of any of it.

Welp, the saga continues. And frankly, it makes a compelling case for why this all hinges on the word of one person who has a lot of self-interested reasons to change his stance:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-clanton/

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I missed that it was a text, which is a little different from an e-mail, but it still just seems remarkably unsavvy.

Maybe it's part of growing up in the South, but I've found that white people say some very "unsavvy" shit when they think they're speaking privately and surrounded by likeminded people. That includes educated white people. But again, I'm not saying Clanton did it. At this point, there are only a few people who truly know, and I'm not one of them.

I don't disagree with this at all, but I would think there would be a slightly bigger gulf between speaking and writing. (Though again, my take is colored a little by misreading it as an e-mail to start with.)

And to be clear, I'm not claiming to know what happened either. I think getting a bunch of people to cover up for the alleged statements is less plausible than one person doing something weird, but I absolutely don't know the truth of any of it.

Welp, the saga continues. And frankly, it makes a compelling case for why this all hinges on the word of one person who has a lot of self-interested reasons to change his stance:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-clanton/

I repeat.

So the new claim is that multiple members of the judiciary, a Supreme Court justice, and an organization that has no real need to defend the clerk (after all, the supposed story was that they fired her post-racist texts), all lied under oath, and the 2nd Cir. is incompetent? Just take the L.

[abelo]

Yeah, I missed that it was a text, which is a little different from an e-mail, but it still just seems remarkably unsavvy.

Maybe it's part of growing up in the South, but I've found that white people say some very "unsavvy" shit when they think they're speaking privately and surrounded by likeminded people. That includes educated white people. But again, I'm not saying Clanton did it. At this point, there are only a few people who truly know, and I'm not one of them.

I don't disagree with this at all, but I would think there would be a slightly bigger gulf between speaking and writing. (Though again, my take is colored a little by misreading it as an e-mail to start with.)

And to be clear, I'm not claiming to know what happened either. I think getting a bunch of people to cover up for the alleged statements is less plausible than one person doing something weird, but I absolutely don't know the truth of any of it.

Welp, the saga continues. And frankly, it makes a compelling case for why this all hinges on the word of one person who has a lot of self-interested reasons to change his stance:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-clanton/

I repeat.

So the new claim is that multiple members of the judiciary, a Supreme Court justice, and an organization that has no real need to defend the clerk (after all, the supposed story was that they fired her post-racist texts), all lied under oath, and the 2nd Cir. is incompetent? Just take the L.

If she didn't do it, then we've helped permanently humiliate her on a national stage for no reason. She must have done something.

[nixy]

Humiliated all the way to the 11th Circuit and maybe ultimately scotus.

[Anonymous User]

Humiliated all the way to the 11th Circuit and maybe ultimately scotus.

There are vast social and emotional harms associated with being falsely tarred as a racist and having a substantial part of the journalistic legal world try and ruin your life, in lieu of doing anything useful for society. Just because better members of society eventually took sympathy and offered charity does not wipe out those harms, nor diminish them in the moment.

[Quichelorraine]

Humiliated all the way to the 11th Circuit and maybe ultimately scotus.

That's really the kicker. The joke all along was that she obviously was going to end up at the Supreme Court. Now we find out that, far from being a joke, Clarence Thomas affirmatively indicated his desire to hire her in large part because of the scandal.

It's mind blowing.

ETA: I should note that I have no dog in this fight. I harbor some, uh, questions about how this was resolved, but if she were falsely accused, yes, that sucks. What's odd is how she isn't ascending despite the accusation, but because of it. The idea that she's been falsely accused of racism is what's powering her ascent.

[nixy]

Humiliated all the way to the 11th Circuit and maybe ultimately scotus.

There are vast social and emotional harms associated with being falsely tarred as a racist and having a substantial part of the journalistic legal world try and ruin your life, in lieu of doing anything useful for society. Just because better members of society eventually took sympathy and offered charity does not wipe out those harms, nor diminish them in the moment.

Of course if she was falsely accused, that sucks. Doesn’t change the fact that this looks to have helped her career rather than hurt it.

[abelo]

Of course if she was falsely accused, that sucks. Doesn’t change the fact that this looks to have helped her career rather than hurt it.

"If it's true, then she deserves everything bad that's coming to her. If it's not true, I don't have to be guilty—we did her a favor, really!"

[Anonymous User]

Humiliated all the way to the 11th Circuit and maybe ultimately scotus.

There are vast social and emotional harms associated with being falsely tarred as a racist and having a substantial part of the journalistic legal world try and ruin your life, in lieu of doing anything useful for society. Just because better members of society eventually took sympathy and offered charity does not wipe out those harms, nor diminish them in the moment.

Of course if she was falsely accused, that sucks. Doesn’t change the fact that this looks to have helped her career rather than hurt it.

"Jean Valjean getting thrown in prison for stealing a loaf of bread was actually a good thing because it led to him being elected Mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer"

[lavarman84]

Yeah, I missed that it was a text, which is a little different from an e-mail, but it still just seems remarkably unsavvy.

Maybe it's part of growing up in the South, but I've found that white people say some very "unsavvy" shit when they think they're speaking privately and surrounded by likeminded people. That includes educated white people. But again, I'm not saying Clanton did it. At this point, there are only a few people who truly know, and I'm not one of them.

I don't disagree with this at all, but I would think there would be a slightly bigger gulf between speaking and writing. (Though again, my take is colored a little by misreading it as an e-mail to start with.)

And to be clear, I'm not claiming to know what happened either. I think getting a bunch of people to cover up for the alleged statements is less plausible than one person doing something weird, but I absolutely don't know the truth of any of it.

Welp, the saga continues. And frankly, it makes a compelling case for why this all hinges on the word of one person who has a lot of self-interested reasons to change his stance:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-clanton/

I repeat.

So the new claim is that multiple members of the judiciary, a Supreme Court justice, and an organization that has no real need to defend the clerk (after all, the supposed story was that they fired her post-racist texts), all lied under oath, and the 2nd Cir. is incompetent? Just take the L.

I repeat, the claim that she's innocent hinges entirely on the word of Charlie Kirk. Pryor and the other Alabama judge were absolved not because she's innocent but because they looked into the accusations. Thomas spoke only to her character from his interactions with her and what he was told by TPUSA. And the Second Circuit's investigation was to determine if the judges did their due diligence, not to determine whether Clanton actually did it.

Where does that leave us? With all of the judges involved basing everything on Charlie Kirk's exoneration of her. Brave anon, why did Turning Point fire her with such swiftness if it was all a lie? Why didn't she defend herself before the article originally came out if this was all a case of fraudulent texts? Why didn't TPUSA defend her back then? Why did the person who received the texts confirm their existence? Why did it take so long for the claim that somebody fabricated the texts to come out?

There are many reasons why TPUSA would want to defend her now. There are many reasons why Charlie Kirk would see it as beneficial to defend her. It isn't much of a "conspiracy" when all it takes is for one self-interested person who was supposedly quite close with her in the past to lie.

But hey, she must be exonerated! After all, the judiciary's cursory investigation to figure out if Bill Pryor looked into the accusations before hiring her concluded that he did. Clearly, we should distrust the reporters with good reputations who verified sources and gave TPUSA and Clanton an opportunity to speak before they printed the original articles/editorials, including as recently as October 2021 (when Charlie Kirk's spokesman reaffirmed the account from the New Yorker article about why she was fired). Just take the L.

(Where are you getting that Charlie Kirk was placed under oath?)

EDIT: And while I'm at it, I'll note that Bill Pryor's letter took some liberties with the truth.

[nixy]

"If it's true, then she deserves everything bad that's coming to her. If it's not true, I don't have to be guilty—we did her a favor, really!"

"Jean Valjean getting thrown in prison for stealing a loaf of bread was actually a good thing because it led to him being elected Mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer"

Lol at the butthurt. Things can be both bad and beneficial at the same time.

[The Lsat Airbender]

"Jean Valjean getting thrown in prison for stealing a loaf of bread was actually a good thing because it led to him being elected Mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer"

Could not imagine a more boomer-y example

[Anonymous User]

I had a much longer response typed out and then TLS deleted everything I wrote, so here are the sparknotes.

I repeat, the claim that she's innocent hinges entirely on the word of Charlie Kirk.

and about 30 other people risking their reputations to believe him, including but not limited to: George Mason University, GMU faculty, Justice Thomas, Judge Pryor, Judge Maze, the 2nd Circuit, and the lack of anything in the record indicating he isn't telling the truth

Pryor and the other Alabama judge were absolved not because she's innocent but because they looked into the accusations. Thomas spoke only to her character from his interactions with her and what he was told by TPUSA. And the Second Circuit's investigation was to determine if the judges did their due diligence, not to determine whether Clanton actually did it.

Where does that leave us? With all of the judges involved basing everything on Charlie Kirk's exoneration of her. Brave anon, why did Turning Point fire her with such swiftness if it was all a lie?

-TPUSA acting first and finding out the truth later isn't unexpected, especially when the organization was under quite a bit of fire.


Why didn't she defend herself before the article originally came out if this was all a case of fraudulent texts?

"The reason Clanton never spoke out against the allegations is because she is bound by a non-disclosure agreement with her former employer, Pryor wrote." Reading between the lines, it's pretty apparent there was a payout to bury this.

Generally speaking, plenty of people would not engage with hostile reporters anyway, and might hope for it to all go away, which it did. If GMU hadn't posted all of their clerks publicly, which I have never seen any other school do, and ATL hadn't decided to desperately search the histories of all the clerks for judges they didn't like in the hopes of generating clicks, it would have never come up. I will concede this is a better story than their follow-up about Yale FedSoc having a murder mystery party though.

Why didn't TPUSA defend her back then? Why did the person who received the texts confirm their existence? Why did it take so long for the claim that somebody fabricated the texts to come out?

Well the person hasn't yet provided any evidence of them, other than screenshots from 2015 which were never verified, and now refuses to talk

There are many reasons why TPUSA would want to defend her now. There are many reasons why Charlie Kirk would see it as beneficial to defend her. It isn't much of a "conspiracy" when all it takes is for one self-interested person who was supposedly quite close with her in the past to lie.

What reasons are those? Kirk could just say he fired her and that was that, without lying to multiple judges about something that should be easily disprovable

But hey, she must be exonerated! After all, the judiciary's cursory investigation to figure out if Bill Pryor looked into the accusations before hiring her concluded that he did.

I trust the 2nd Circuit to do their job yes.

Clearly, we should distrust the reporters with good reputations who verified sources and gave TPUSA and Clanton an opportunity to speak before they printed the original articles/editorials, including as recently as October 2021 (when Charlie Kirk's spokesman reaffirmed the account from the New Yorker article about why she was fired). Just take the L.

https://twitter.com/RuthMarcus/status/1 ... 1194886144
Clearly the sign of a reputable reporter that will be fair to her ideological opponents.


(Where are you getting that Charlie Kirk was placed under oath?)
I thought he had given a letter to the 2nd Circuit. My bad. Not that I believe most people make it a habit to lie to federal judges

EDIT: And while I'm at it, I'll note that Bill Pryor's letter took some liberties with the truth.

I'll conclude by pointing out there is little logical reason to deny the existence of the texts, which if they exist, should be fairly easy to produce. If Justice Thomas stated that he heard about the issue, saw a misguided racist young woman and wanted to show her Black people aren't animals and are worthy of respect, and after seven years is proud that she has evolved, that would presumably have been sufficient without professing a belief in an otherwise kooky tale.

Edit: Just sharing a hearty laugh about Ruth Marcus being described as a "reporter with a good reputation" after getting slapped down by SCOTUS today: https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1483481566827405321

https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1 ... 6474885131

[nixy]

https://twitter.com/RuthMarcus/status/1 ... 1194886144
Clearly the sign of a reputable reporter that will be fair to her ideological opponents.


Edit: Just sharing a hearty laugh about Ruth Marcus being described as a "reporter with a good reputation" after getting slapped down by SCOTUS today: https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1483481566827405321

https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1 ... 6474885131

I don't know enough about the facts in this case (or care that much) to weigh in on the original debate, but this is just dumb political grandstanding. Ruth Marcus wasn't the only person reporting on this and she's not getting slapped down by SCOTUS, random tweets from a former Gorsuch clerk notwithstanding. (I'm sorry, how is the latter somehow someone who is fair to his ideological opponents?)

And I don't even care about Ruth Marcus, I just think the critiques above are stupid. Her most recent thing about the clerk is an opinion piece, not offered as objective journalism.

[Anonymous User]

https://twitter.com/RuthMarcus/status/1 ... 1194886144
Clearly the sign of a reputable reporter that will be fair to her ideological opponents.


Edit: Just sharing a hearty laugh about Ruth Marcus being described as a "reporter with a good reputation" after getting slapped down by SCOTUS today: https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1483481566827405321

https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1 ... 6474885131

I don't know enough about the facts in this case (or care that much) to weigh in on the original debate, but this is just dumb political grandstanding. Ruth Marcus wasn't the only person reporting on this and she's not getting slapped down by SCOTUS, random tweets from a former Gorsuch clerk notwithstanding. (I'm sorry, how is the latter somehow someone who is fair to his ideological opponents?)

And I don't even care about Ruth Marcus, I just think the critiques above are stupid. Her most recent thing about the clerk is an opinion piece, not offered as objective journalism.

It's hardly grandstanding when she's doubling down on a story that is provably false. Seems pertinent if the comment I responded to is holding her as a pillar of veracity.
https://twitter.com/RuthMarcus/status/1 ... 6990140421

But I'll end with my main point, which is that it makes little sense for everyone whose reputation would be on the line to go with a very disprovable claim when it is not needed. Consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that the original story was wrong. Additionally, the idea being called falsely called a racist is actually a good thing is risible.

If Ruth Marcus can come up with evidence otherwise, I'm happy to change my mind. But her article yesterday certainly didn't do that.

[lavarman84]

I had a much longer response typed out and then TLS deleted everything I wrote, so here are the sparknotes.

I repeat, the claim that she's innocent hinges entirely on the word of Charlie Kirk.

and about 30 other people risking their reputations to believe him, including but not limited to: George Mason University, GMU faculty, Justice Thomas, Judge Pryor, Judge Maze, the 2nd Circuit, and the lack of anything in the record indicating he isn't telling the truth

Pryor and the other Alabama judge were absolved not because she's innocent but because they looked into the accusations. Thomas spoke only to her character from his interactions with her and what he was told by TPUSA. And the Second Circuit's investigation was to determine if the judges did their due diligence, not to determine whether Clanton actually did it.

Where does that leave us? With all of the judges involved basing everything on Charlie Kirk's exoneration of her. Brave anon, why did Turning Point fire her with such swiftness if it was all a lie?

-TPUSA acting first and finding out the truth later isn't unexpected, especially when the organization was under quite a bit of fire.


Why didn't she defend herself before the article originally came out if this was all a case of fraudulent texts?

"The reason Clanton never spoke out against the allegations is because she is bound by a non-disclosure agreement with her former employer, Pryor wrote." Reading between the lines, it's pretty apparent there was a payout to bury this.

Generally speaking, plenty of people would not engage with hostile reporters anyway, and might hope for it to all go away, which it did. If GMU hadn't posted all of their clerks publicly, which I have never seen any other school do, and ATL hadn't decided to desperately search the histories of all the clerks for judges they didn't like in the hopes of generating clicks, it would have never come up. I will concede this is a better story than their follow-up about Yale FedSoc having a murder mystery party though.

Why didn't TPUSA defend her back then? Why did the person who received the texts confirm their existence? Why did it take so long for the claim that somebody fabricated the texts to come out?

Well the person hasn't yet provided any evidence of them, other than screenshots from 2015 which were never verified, and now refuses to talk

There are many reasons why TPUSA would want to defend her now. There are many reasons why Charlie Kirk would see it as beneficial to defend her. It isn't much of a "conspiracy" when all it takes is for one self-interested person who was supposedly quite close with her in the past to lie.

What reasons are those? Kirk could just say he fired her and that was that, without lying to multiple judges about something that should be easily disprovable

But hey, she must be exonerated! After all, the judiciary's cursory investigation to figure out if Bill Pryor looked into the accusations before hiring her concluded that he did.

I trust the 2nd Circuit to do their job yes.

Clearly, we should distrust the reporters with good reputations who verified sources and gave TPUSA and Clanton an opportunity to speak before they printed the original articles/editorials, including as recently as October 2021 (when Charlie Kirk's spokesman reaffirmed the account from the New Yorker article about why she was fired). Just take the L.

https://twitter.com/RuthMarcus/status/1 ... 1194886144
Clearly the sign of a reputable reporter that will be fair to her ideological opponents.


(Where are you getting that Charlie Kirk was placed under oath?)
I thought he had given a letter to the 2nd Circuit. My bad. Not that I believe most people make it a habit to lie to federal judges

EDIT: And while I'm at it, I'll note that Bill Pryor's letter took some liberties with the truth.

I'll conclude by pointing out there is little logical reason to deny the existence of the texts, which if they exist, should be fairly easy to produce. If Justice Thomas stated that he heard about the issue, saw a misguided racist young woman and wanted to show her Black people aren't animals and are worthy of respect, and after seven years is proud that she has evolved, that would presumably have been sufficient without professing a belief in an otherwise kooky tale.

Edit: Just sharing a hearty laugh about Ruth Marcus being described as a "reporter with a good reputation" after getting slapped down by SCOTUS today: https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1483481566827405321

https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1 ... 6474885131

1. So it all hinges on Charlie Kirk. He's the one vouching for her and making the claim that the texts were fabricated. And there's plenty in the record that casts doubt on the story. Of course, I imagine one's willingness to trust Charlie Kirk probably has to do with one's personal opinion of him. My personal opinion of him isn't a complimentary one.

2. That's certainly true. But Ginni Thomas took her in before it was all allegedly discovered and wasn't happy with TPUSA for doing it, based on the Mayer article.

3. The NDA is a bit of a weird claim when Charlie Kirk apparently was already out there correcting the record. But fine, we'll go with the NDA. Why did TPUSA reaffirm what it said to Mayer to Ruth Marcus when she asked them about it roughly three months ago?

4. The O'Rourke guy apparently provided screenshots and confirmed the texts. People who worked with her said they sounded accurate. And then there was the whole Snapchat issue.

5. What reasons? She's in the good graces of the Thomases, especially Ginni Thomas, she's a former close friend of Kirk's, and she looks poised to have a very successful legal career on the Republican side of things. I'd say it's pretty obvious why it would be beneficial to Kirk to be in her good graces.

6. The Second Circuit's job was determining if Bill Pryor did his due diligence, not if Crystal Clanton is innocent.

7. I was more speaking of Jane Mayer, but citing that tweet as a reason we can't trust that Marcus verified sources is beyond a stretch.

8. That assumes that the person who has the texts wants to produce them. What does he gain by doing it?

9. I have my doubts about that being sufficient. If the racist texts happened, she'd be radioactive to federal judges.

[nixy]

It's hardly grandstanding when she's doubling down on a story that is provably false. Seems pertinent if the comment I responded to is holding her as a pillar of veracity.
https://twitter.com/RuthMarcus/status/1 ... 6990140421

But I'll end with my main point, which is that it makes little sense for everyone whose reputation would be on the line to go with a very disprovable claim when it is not needed. Consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that the original story was wrong. Additionally, the idea being called falsely called a racist is actually a good thing is risible.

I mean, the thing is, she’s not arguing what you say she’s arguing. SCOTUS issued a statement saying that there is no conflict between Sotomayor and Gorsuch over Gorsuch not wearing a mask. Marcus isn’t saying such a conflict exists. She’s saying that Gorsuch is a dick for not wearing one, regardless of whether Sotomayor asked him to.

You can absolutely disagree but she’s publishing opinion pieces. She’s not publishing objective fact pieces that are true or untrue. You can disagree with her judgment, but you’re calling what she’s saying false and provably wrong, and it’s not. She’s absolutely accurate about her own opinion on matters. (And whether you agree with that opinion is going to depend on your politics.)

Finally, let’s put to rest the idea that I said it’s a good thing to be falsely accused of racism. I said that she has thrived in her career despite the possibly false accusations of racism. It’s an accurate observation. I didn’t say anything about that making false accusations a good thing.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Truly a Dreyfuss Affair for our time

[Anonymous User]

This thread alone is why we should get rid of SCOTUS and judicial review. Please.