Wednesday Writs: US v. 40 Barrels and 20 Kegs of Coca Cola

Avatar

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

26 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Coca-Cola was the vaping to Coffee’s cigarettes.

    The government learned its lesson: Don’t let a Jury decide. Just do it and declare it’s good for the people.Report

  2. Avatar Michael Cain
    Ignored
    says:

    L5: You mean redistricting architect, don’t you?Report

  3. Avatar Slade the Leveller
    Ignored
    says:

    L6: I’ve been a HS football official for nearly 30 years, and these kinds of things are a big deal in discussions in different online officiating groups. That said, the crimes in the new bills are already crimes, so I don’t think they’re really necessary. The assaults we’re trying to prevent with laws protecting officials are always crimes of passion (though what they’re passionate about is usually pretty idiotic), so a new, harsher punishment isn’t going to factor in until after the assault has already happened.

    After all that, Em, let your husband know that he’s definitely being derided in the refs’ locker room. Good officials aren’t intimidated by a little yelling. Especially when the stakes are as low as they are in your kid’s games.Report

  4. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    L9: The march of equal rights moves ever onward.Report

    • Avatar PD Shaw
      Ignored
      says:

      Or alternatively, since the Judge signed a formal answer denying having a sexual relationship with the two, she might be the victim of traditional smears about the sex lives of women in the limelight.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        Don’t men often do the same if they are accused of sexual impropriety in the workplace?Report

        • Avatar veronica d
          Ignored
          says:

          Exactly. While I fully support the honorable judge’s right to have wild queer sex parties, having wild queer sex parties with a subordinate in the workplace is not okay.Report

        • Avatar PD Shaw
          Ignored
          says:

          Yeah, I suppose so; I just think conflicts with women tend to get expressed in the woman’s sexual mores more often. I obviously don’t know what happened, but do think her making a formal denial which (at least in my state) would amount to perjury if false makes me wonder if this is simply sour grapes from a man fired from his job and the only reason he can think he was fired is because the judge can’t control her sexual urges.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon
            Ignored
            says:

            Well, to hear tell from certain corners of the web, men are nearly constantly accused of sexual shenanigans when they fire women!

            Yes, there is something there when it comes to how people react to other peoples sexual desires (men are supposed to be randy, women – not so much). Still, if the sexes were swapped, much of the story would read the same.Report

            • Avatar veronica d
              Ignored
              says:

              There is an obvious sexual disparity in how these issues are framed. On the other hand, there is a real asymmetry in how the gender roles play out in practice, so it would be unexpected for our impulses to be unbiased and principled.

              That said, in this particular case, it appears the principles were applied fairly. It is wrong to have sexual relationships with subordinates in the workplace, even if you’re a woman.Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                The other thing is that this woman is a judge and the legal profession has standards in how lawyers and judges are suppsoed to act. Judge Gentry’s behavior fell below those standards. Besides having sex in her chambers, all sorts of inunendo with a female judge with that phrase, Judge Gentry allowed her staff to get drunk during working hours.

                Plus this is only part of the story. Lawyers have reported that they were pressured to join in these threesomes and that lawyers who refused to do so were given un-preferential treatment by the judge. That means lawyers needed to participate if they wanted their clients to get something close to a fair hearing.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I suppose it’s a kind of progress that we now have powerful women who can abuse their power for sexual gratification.Report

              • Avatar PD Shaw
                Ignored
                says:

                We don’t know if the situation is fair. The Judge denied that she had sexual relationships in her filing. There will be a trial where the prosecutors have to prove she had sex. I place importance on the denial because she could have equivocated by agreeing to some aspect of it, and perjury is probably a much more serious offense than the underlying sexual allegations.Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                The counter-argument is that a lot of men in the same situation would have unequivocally denied having sexual relationships as a defense even if they were guilty. It could be the truth or a standard criminal defense move. There are lots of witnesses corroborating the accusations against her.Report

  5. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Paul Krugman recently tweeted something. Charitably, he fell for a support scam. Uncharitably, some news is going to be coming out soon. To make this themely: Legal stuff.

    Report

    • Avatar Andrew Donaldson
      Ignored
      says:

      If we take him at face value, and you should until proven otherwise due to seriousness of repercussions if it is otherwise, it sounds like he got spearfished and thought it was real.Report

    • fillyjonk fillyjonk
      Ignored
      says:

      I saw this elsewhere and my first thought is “is he goofing on all of us here?” I mean, I could see someone acting like they fell for a scam for kicks and giggles.

      He GENUINELY fell for the “Your Windows may have a compromise” scam phone call? Gonna be bad times when “the IRS” calls him up….

      I dunno. I know “anyone” can fall for things but frankly this scam has been so discussed and joked about online that….yeah, it’s kind of baffling.

      I once got the “Your Windows has a compromise” call (back before I had caller ID on my landline) and I told the guy at the other end, “Does your mother know you lie to and defraud people for a living?” I got hung up on, fast.

      Being a suspicious wench has its benefits, though I will also note I once or twice deleted e-mails that turned out to be legit e-mails….Report

      • Avatar North
        Ignored
        says:

        Problem with that kind of choice now days? Confronting anyone who calls you gets your number flagged as a “live” line with an owner who’ll pick up and your calls will increase by a factor of a hundred.Report

  6. Avatar LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    L9: This judge is a year younger than me. Its kind of amazing watch people your age or younger mess up their lives in spectacular ways in the way you associated with adults as an older person. Its also kind of amazing to see how many wild people in the legal profession end up doing things that destroy their careers for some temporary good times.Report

  1. May 3, 2020

    […] soda maker was so addictive because it contained “dope”. He meant the caffeine, and Coca-Cola finally won in the US Supreme Court, but not before spawning another one of those food myths that persists to this day about the […]Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *