The story identifies the location as Nassau County, on Long Island. It doesn't identify the town, but it could be Hicksville, which is in Nassau County.
We have in the past discussed whether former NY Times editorial page editor James Bennet was a victim of cancel culture or just not very good at his job. Here is a data point in favor of "not very good at his job":
That said, given the high legal bar Palin has to clear, the Times may still win on retrial. It might have won, cleanly, the first time around if the judge hadn't been more clever than sensible. It takes a really smart judge to make a mistake that an average hack judge would never think of making.
QI rarely has much to do with anything, over the broad range of cases. In my 30-plus years holding down a job in which QI is supposed to be tremendously important, I cannot remember a single case in which QI came into play. (Given the limits of my memory and records, I can't be absolutely certain that it has never come up, but I can be sure that if it has, it has come up in, at most, the low single digits.) The experience of several other colleagues and lawyers in other, similar jobs (including some who did almost nothing but police misconduct cases) was similar. Joanna Schwarz's excellent book, Shielded, which is essential reading on police misconduct cases, is scathing on QI -- and no one can be happy about the current, wild and woolly state of the case law (in my own federal circuit, it is far more civilized) -- but repeats her own extensive empirical research, which largely confirms my (and others') experience, showing that QI is rarely involved in civil rights cases and little would change if it were eliminated.
But some folks have an unerring instinct for the capillaries.
Now this actually could be a conspiracy. There's an understandable mechanism and a plausible reason. Someone might be paying someone at the BLS to delay the figures and let him get a first look to trade on the early information. At least this makes sense, and things like this have been done before.
At this point, it's not the way to bet, on the theory that when you hear clattering hooves in a city street it's more likely horses than zebras. It's more likely a screw-up than a criminal conspiracy, but that's certainly a possibility that will be looked into.
Who would be in charge of getting the message out and why would literally thousands of market players and financial journalists play along? If you're going to spin conspiracy theories, the conspiracy has to make conspiratorial sense.
As a wise commenter once said: There’s no end to the possibilities once you divorce yourself from the requirement of evidence. The internet welcomes you aboard!
These estimates and revisions are released on a regular, public schedule. Market professionals and the financial press know when they're coming well in advance and issue their own predictions just before they are released. Messing with the schedule because of elections would set off all sorts of alarms.
I’m actually disappointed that Disney backed down for PR reasons, because people need to understand just how this sort of thing works.
What disappoints me is that we have lost a chance at a decision that would say that this is not "how this sort of thing works," which, I think, is how it would ultimately have come out. So maybe somebody will get away with it down the road because nobody put the kibosh on it here. But you can't expect litigants to forego their self-interest in the larger social interest of getting rules settled.
Litigants lie or shade things all the time (in absolute terms, not proportional terms -- sort of like car crashes, which happen all the time but not enough to keep us off the roads) and are often caught at it, frequently with devastating results. The particular statements involved here, however, are unlikely to be false because A identifies a specific filed document in which A claims that B said C. That kind of thing is too easy to check, so I would be inclined to believe that B did file a document saying C. What B is alleged to have said, C, is too straightforward to be spun, though putting forward a reasonable interpretation of language subject to multiple interpretations would be permissible spin rather than misconduct. So I'd be inclined to believe A's version of C.
The larger question is, I think, unanswerable with any precision.
In the mid-80s, I worked on an arbitration that involved three trips to Singapore and Malaysia. Although arbitration hasn't been relevant to my practice since then, I still follow the appellate cases in my circuit and in the Supremes. Although I should know better, I am still amazed at clients' willingness to throw good money after bad seeking to overturn arbitration awards because the arbitrator got it wrong. Since that's not a permissible basis, they have to disguise what they're doing, but it never works
A few years ago, I had to explain this to a bunch of sports fans after the Second Circuit upheld the arbitrator's decision in the Tom Brady Deflategate case. It was the rare case in which the trial court strayed outside of its lane and dug into the merits. (The judge, incidentally, was a high school classmate of Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel and Mrs. Simon was one of his teachers.) He made what I thought was a compelling case that the arbitrator was wrong, but the Circuit reversed
My sports fan friends agreed with the trial judge and I had to explain that he was reversed because he gave the right answer to the wrong question -- whether the arbitrator got it right. That simply isn't a proper ground to overturn an arbitration awards. The Circuit opinion was short, sweet, and correct, but since this was probably the only arbitration case anyone but parties and lawyers would pay any attention to, I thought it was a missed opportunity to educate the general public by laying out the basics in more detail and explaining how judicial review of arbitration awards works and why. Normally, courts don't do this because their normal audience doesn't need it and they are very busy, but I still think it would have been useful
No, that's not how it works. The lawsuit is ongoing. There is a preliminary injunction currently in force. It will continue in force as long as the underlying lawsuit continues, unless the judge rescinds or modifies or clarifies it. If violated, the violators are subject to punishment for contempt. That's how it works. As I said before, if you want to play lawyer, don't commit malpractice.
As for your billable hours speculation, I don't get paid that way. It is in my selfish interest for things to be clear so I don't have to spend time on them.
OK, so you have managed to re-read the original comment and address the actual issues you said weren't raised. You have your own views on what the answers to those issues are. Those views may be right or wrong -- for what it's worth, I agree with some of them -- but our views are just that, our own views. But does the judge agree with us? No clients will care what Jaybird of Colorado Springs thinks and they won't be much more interested in what I think, even though they pay for my advice. They will want to know what I think the judge thinks, and what to do if it's not clear. There are ways of finding that out. Pretending to know isn't one of them.
I would have to give you the same answer either at the end of the month or at the end of September. Ethics are a bitch.
But has it occurred to you that your entire theory -- that I am feigning a lack of understanding of the scope of the judge's order in certain respects -- makes no damn sense? Why would I feign such a lack of understanding? What would it get me? How would I profit from it? I think I understand why you think I am wrong about the clarity of the judge's order, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. But why would I make it up?
I don't represent anyone currently affected by the order, and don't expect to. To the extent that any of my existing clients, looking ahead to the possibility of being subject to similar orders, may be seeking my advice, I must decline to respond.
I understand that to be your position. I will put my understanding of the judge's order and its limits up against yours in the advice marketplace and take my chances.
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/26/2024”
I guess the "Hicksville" joke didn't land. But only hacks blame the audience.
"
The story identifies the location as Nassau County, on Long Island. It doesn't identify the town, but it could be Hicksville, which is in Nassau County.
"
Yes, I did. More evidence that he wasn't very good at his job
"
And you didn't believe him when he said it:
Maybe he was just thinking “Ugh. Another senator like the last 48 senatorial op-eds we’ve run since I worked in the mail room. Ho-hum.”
And then when he realized that his options were:
1: Pretend to not have read it
B: Enjoy a pleasant struggle session
He chose 1.
"
No, just have to prove things.
"
We have in the past discussed whether former NY Times editorial page editor James Bennet was a victim of cancel culture or just not very good at his job. Here is a data point in favor of "not very good at his job":
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/business/media/sarah-palin-libel-trial-new-york-times.html
That said, given the high legal bar Palin has to clear, the Times may still win on retrial. It might have won, cleanly, the first time around if the judge hadn't been more clever than sensible. It takes a really smart judge to make a mistake that an average hack judge would never think of making.
"
QI rarely has much to do with anything, over the broad range of cases. In my 30-plus years holding down a job in which QI is supposed to be tremendously important, I cannot remember a single case in which QI came into play. (Given the limits of my memory and records, I can't be absolutely certain that it has never come up, but I can be sure that if it has, it has come up in, at most, the low single digits.) The experience of several other colleagues and lawyers in other, similar jobs (including some who did almost nothing but police misconduct cases) was similar. Joanna Schwarz's excellent book, Shielded, which is essential reading on police misconduct cases, is scathing on QI -- and no one can be happy about the current, wild and woolly state of the case law (in my own federal circuit, it is far more civilized) -- but repeats her own extensive empirical research, which largely confirms my (and others') experience, showing that QI is rarely involved in civil rights cases and little would change if it were eliminated.
But some folks have an unerring instinct for the capillaries.
On “Kamala Harris DNC Speech: Watch It For Yourself”
Call me Ishmael.
"
They're all "children of Abraham."
"
That's obviously wrong. There was Barack Obama.
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/19/2024”
Now this actually could be a conspiracy. There's an understandable mechanism and a plausible reason. Someone might be paying someone at the BLS to delay the figures and let him get a first look to trade on the early information. At least this makes sense, and things like this have been done before.
At this point, it's not the way to bet, on the theory that when you hear clattering hooves in a city street it's more likely horses than zebras. It's more likely a screw-up than a criminal conspiracy, but that's certainly a possibility that will be looked into.
On “Is Harris Limiting Press Access Helping Her?”
Who would be in charge of getting the message out and why would literally thousands of market players and financial journalists play along? If you're going to spin conspiracy theories, the conspiracy has to make conspiratorial sense.
"
We who? What key players? And how would that message, whether it got out to the public or the public could read a calendar, not make matters worse?
"
As a wise commenter once said: There’s no end to the possibilities once you divorce yourself from the requirement of evidence. The internet welcomes you aboard!
These estimates and revisions are released on a regular, public schedule. Market professionals and the financial press know when they're coming well in advance and issue their own predictions just before they are released. Messing with the schedule because of elections would set off all sorts of alarms.
On “Disney’s Arbitration Maneuver: A Real Mickey Mouse Operation”
I’m actually disappointed that Disney backed down for PR reasons, because people need to understand just how this sort of thing works.
What disappoints me is that we have lost a chance at a decision that would say that this is not "how this sort of thing works," which, I think, is how it would ultimately have come out. So maybe somebody will get away with it down the road because nobody put the kibosh on it here. But you can't expect litigants to forego their self-interest in the larger social interest of getting rules settled.
"
Litigants lie or shade things all the time (in absolute terms, not proportional terms -- sort of like car crashes, which happen all the time but not enough to keep us off the roads) and are often caught at it, frequently with devastating results. The particular statements involved here, however, are unlikely to be false because A identifies a specific filed document in which A claims that B said C. That kind of thing is too easy to check, so I would be inclined to believe that B did file a document saying C. What B is alleged to have said, C, is too straightforward to be spun, though putting forward a reasonable interpretation of language subject to multiple interpretations would be permissible spin rather than misconduct. So I'd be inclined to believe A's version of C.
The larger question is, I think, unanswerable with any precision.
"
In the mid-80s, I worked on an arbitration that involved three trips to Singapore and Malaysia. Although arbitration hasn't been relevant to my practice since then, I still follow the appellate cases in my circuit and in the Supremes. Although I should know better, I am still amazed at clients' willingness to throw good money after bad seeking to overturn arbitration awards because the arbitrator got it wrong. Since that's not a permissible basis, they have to disguise what they're doing, but it never works
A few years ago, I had to explain this to a bunch of sports fans after the Second Circuit upheld the arbitrator's decision in the Tom Brady Deflategate case. It was the rare case in which the trial court strayed outside of its lane and dug into the merits. (The judge, incidentally, was a high school classmate of Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel and Mrs. Simon was one of his teachers.) He made what I thought was a compelling case that the arbitrator was wrong, but the Circuit reversed
My sports fan friends agreed with the trial judge and I had to explain that he was reversed because he gave the right answer to the wrong question -- whether the arbitrator got it right. That simply isn't a proper ground to overturn an arbitration awards. The Circuit opinion was short, sweet, and correct, but since this was probably the only arbitration case anyone but parties and lawyers would pay any attention to, I thought it was a missed opportunity to educate the general public by laying out the basics in more detail and explaining how judicial review of arbitration awards works and why. Normally, courts don't do this because their normal audience doesn't need it and they are very busy, but I still think it would have been useful
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/12/2024”
No, that's not how it works. The lawsuit is ongoing. There is a preliminary injunction currently in force. It will continue in force as long as the underlying lawsuit continues, unless the judge rescinds or modifies or clarifies it. If violated, the violators are subject to punishment for contempt. That's how it works. As I said before, if you want to play lawyer, don't commit malpractice.
As for your billable hours speculation, I don't get paid that way. It is in my selfish interest for things to be clear so I don't have to spend time on them.
"
Hazard away. It's grading one's own papers that's problematic.
"
OK, so you have managed to re-read the original comment and address the actual issues you said weren't raised. You have your own views on what the answers to those issues are. Those views may be right or wrong -- for what it's worth, I agree with some of them -- but our views are just that, our own views. But does the judge agree with us? No clients will care what Jaybird of Colorado Springs thinks and they won't be much more interested in what I think, even though they pay for my advice. They will want to know what I think the judge thinks, and what to do if it's not clear. There are ways of finding that out. Pretending to know isn't one of them.
"
I would have to give you the same answer either at the end of the month or at the end of September. Ethics are a bitch.
But has it occurred to you that your entire theory -- that I am feigning a lack of understanding of the scope of the judge's order in certain respects -- makes no damn sense? Why would I feign such a lack of understanding? What would it get me? How would I profit from it? I think I understand why you think I am wrong about the clarity of the judge's order, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. But why would I make it up?
"
I accept that as an accurate account of your mental state.
"
I don't represent anyone currently affected by the order, and don't expect to. To the extent that any of my existing clients, looking ahead to the possibility of being subject to similar orders, may be seeking my advice, I must decline to respond.
"
I understand that to be your position. I will put my understanding of the judge's order and its limits up against yours in the advice marketplace and take my chances.
"
Well, yes, that does seem to be your problem. But it isn't my problem to solve.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.