Ace of Spades HQ

February 21, 2014

Huffpost Live On Legal News This Week
— Gabriel Malor

Just a note: I'll be on Huffpost Live again starting at 2pm as part of a panel on Mike Sack's 'Legalese It!' show, which covers legal news of the week.

We'll be talking about the movement to put cameras in the Supreme Court, next week's EPA showdown at the Supreme Court, and the state attorneys general who are refusing to defend state marriage laws.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:54 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don't think there should be any cameras in any courts. I think we need a law like Canada and France: no news coverage of trials whatsoever until they're over. That's not a violation of the press, its just a delay until it won't be damaging to culture and justice.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 21, 2014 09:57 AM (zfY+H)

2 We'll be talking about the movement to put cameras in the Supreme Court

I've wondered how often they have to hold a mirror up to Ginsberg's mouth to make sure she's still with us.

Posted by: HR at February 21, 2014 09:57 AM (ZKzrr)

3 I don't think there should be any cameras in any courts. I think we need a law like Canada and France: no news coverage of trials whatsoever until they're over. That's not a violation of the press, its just a delay until it won't be damaging to culture and justice.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 21, 2014 01:57 PM (zfY+H)

That's real retarded, sir.

Posted by: Rachel Jenteal at February 21, 2014 09:58 AM (GQ8sn)

4 2 We'll be talking about the movement to put cameras in the Supreme Court I've wondered how often they have to hold a mirror up to Ginsberg's mouth to make sure she's still with us. Posted by: HR at February 21, 2014 01:57 PM (ZKzrr) One minute she sounds like a chubby lesbian and the next she sounds like Chita Rivera. I thought she was just speaking in tonguesÂ…

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 21, 2014 09:58 AM (olDqf)

5 Movement, schmovement. Cameras will be in the Supreme Court when the then-serving Chief Justice says so. And not until. If ever.

Posted by: J. Moses Browning at February 21, 2014 09:59 AM (KMEac)

6 What EPA case is before SCOTUS?

Posted by: joncelli at February 21, 2014 10:00 AM (RD7QR)

7 Maybe you could talk about how the Obama administration keeps getting absolutely smoked at the Supreme Court 9-0 even with the whacked out uber-leftists he's added to it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 21, 2014 10:01 AM (zfY+H)

8 2:04pm

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 21, 2014 10:03 AM (IXrOn)

9 *Breathes in that crisp fresh thread

Posted by: Adam at February 21, 2014 10:04 AM (Aif/5)

10 I know Levin was/is involved in deposing Lisa Jackson and the other little tyrants there under FOIA. Is that it?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 21, 2014 10:05 AM (olDqf)

11
Fourteen Oh Five!

Posted by: Chatty Snatchbanger at February 21, 2014 10:06 AM (nQjHM)

12 Host has a nice upper body.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 21, 2014 10:08 AM (IXrOn)

13 Cameras in the SC might have caught Roberts being bribed... or threatened.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 21, 2014 10:09 AM (IXrOn)

14 Canada wins.

1-0

Posted by: EC at February 21, 2014 10:09 AM (GQ8sn)

15 I guess this means Justin Beiber will have to fill out some paperwork.

Posted by: EC at February 21, 2014 10:10 AM (GQ8sn)

@1 I don't think there should be any cameras in any courts. I think we need a law like Canada and France: no news coverage of trials whatsoever until they're over. That's not a violation of the press, its just a delay until it won't be damaging to culture and justice.

---------------------

I don't have a problem with news coverage. No one minded thirty years ago when coverage on TV consisted of a voice over describing what happened, while an artist's rendition of the courtroom and its occupants was displayed on the screen. But I wouldn't complain of the cameras disappeared.

Posted by: junior at February 21, 2014 10:10 AM (UWFpX)

17 EC, I think Jack Vance predicted this with Justine...

http://tinyurl.com/moecsnh

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 21, 2014 10:10 AM (gOmB2)

18 Can I quit for the week yet? This work thing is starting to be sub-human.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 21, 2014 10:12 AM (HVff2)

19 I really like these sessions. Kudos again to Gabe.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 21, 2014 10:12 AM (IXrOn)

20 Aw hell, where are we going to put Bieber? Can we make him live in Nome?

Posted by: joncelli at February 21, 2014 10:12 AM (RD7QR)

21 If you are an attorney general and you cannot, in good conscience, defend a duly and properly passed law, then the proper course of action is to resign rather than refuse to defend it. Yes, I do intend for the obvious analogies and conclusions to be drawn about similar circumstances on the Federal level. I was going to say that an attorney general who refuses to defend such a law should be removed immediately, which is also a perfectly fine option for a Governor to do, but I can come up with scenarios when believing the law was clearly unconstitutional *koff* gun laws *koff* and refusing to defend it in order not to waste state resources could come into being. So I think the I am resigning and here is why option is better.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 21, 2014 10:13 AM (VtjlW)

22 Everyone in Canadia now goes out and jumps in the lake in celebration.
It's the LAW.

Posted by: RolandTHTG at February 21, 2014 10:13 AM (QM5S2)

23 The case is about EPA overreach using regulations to punish us all. Especially in Coal use for electricity. Do me a favor ask your lib friends about all that pollution coming out of the coal fired plants. You know all the pics they show with all that " white smoke " coming out of the stacks. Well it's steam you idiot libs. There is very little smoke that exits and considering how much electricity each plant provides it's negligible.

Posted by: Fourth Horseman at February 21, 2014 10:14 AM (GKF3X)

24 Everyone in Canadia now goes out and jumps in the lake in celebration.
It's the LAW.

Posted by: RolandTHTG at February 21, 2014 02:13 PM (QM5S2)

Nothing is getting done in Canada right now.

I wonder if EoJ is laughing or crying.

Posted by: EC at February 21, 2014 10:15 AM (GQ8sn)

25 Aw come on Fourth Horseman, facts won't matter. Its all about their feelings on saving the planet. Until cost per kilowatt hour costs as much as their new free from the shackles of employment never realized $10/hr 'living' wage. Then it will matter to the special snowflakes and they will then squall, flail their feet, and demand the government do something.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 21, 2014 10:16 AM (gOmB2)

26 ah, there ya go, the BUSH attack

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 21, 2014 10:18 AM (IXrOn)

@21 but I can come up with scenarios when believing the law was clearly unconstitutional *koff* gun laws *koff* and refusing to defend it in order not to waste state resources could come into being. So I think the I am resigning and here is why option is better.

--------------------

I have no problem even with defending an unconstitutional law. If it truly is unconstitutional, then it should be evident and the other side should be able to demonstrate why. And given the importance of precedent, a competent defense of the law in a losing case will hopefully be useful in similar cases that come up in the future.

Posted by: junior at February 21, 2014 10:20 AM (UWFpX)

Damn, we have to keep that punk Beeber? JSMN

I doubt there will ever be camera's in the SC, just getting them into ther Senate and House was damn near impossible and they are fixed position, not roving to show those slack ass bastards just fvcking off as they normally do.

Putting them in every room and following the fools around would be gre

Posted by: Gmac-Pondering...something at February 21, 2014 10:20 AM (4pjhs)

29 Completely off topic but just read the analysis of what is going on in the Ukraine. >>People want to join rule of law, free market EU, President cancels free press and freedom to assemble, Putin develops 'Eurasian Union' which is just dictatorship lite--wants Ukraine in it, protesters get real and organize after being killed, President backs off then tries to seize executive control again not quite so openly, protesters clash with police, people really start to die, Ukraine and Russia call all the protesters Nazis and paint whole revolt as Right Wing violence. America 2015.

Posted by: Daybrother at February 21, 2014 10:20 AM (qeF5L)

Everyone in Canadia now goes out and jumps in the lake in celebration.
It's the LAW.

*belly flops onto frozen lakes*

*debates calling ambulance or cracking another beer*

Posted by: Drunken Canadians at February 21, 2014 10:24 AM (yHo2L)

31 I wonder if EoJ is laughing or crying. Posted by: EC at February 21, 2014 02:15 PM (GQ8sn) Its an intermittent thing

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 21, 2014 10:24 AM (HVff2)

32 Huffpost Live?
Doesn't the Peoples Daily Worker have a streaming service?

Posted by: LeBron Horowitz at February 21, 2014 10:27 AM (cL+9V)

33 I have no problem even with defending an unconstitutional law. If it truly is unconstitutional, then it should be evident and the other side should be able to demonstrate why. And given the importance of precedent, a competent defense of the law in a losing case will hopefully be useful in similar cases that come up in the future. Posted by: junior at February 21, 2014 02:20 PM (UWFpX) That's a fair position as well. I just despise the lalalala I'm just not gonna lalalala response.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 21, 2014 10:38 AM (VtjlW)

34 I would guess that being published on the Huff is kind of like being published in Playboy. Sure, you're happy for the circulation but you are probably reluctant to pick up a copy for your mother.

Posted by: toby928© at February 21, 2014 10:40 AM (QupBk)

@33 That's a fair position as well. I just despise the lalalala I'm just not gonna lalalala response.

-------------------------

Agreed. If someone can't bring themselves to defend it in court, then they need to either figuratively fall on their sword (i.e. resign) or appoint a subordinate who is willing to do so. Public service is supposed to be just that (I know... Ha ha!).

Posted by: junior at February 21, 2014 10:42 AM (UWFpX)

36 It's a stupid name for a internet radio show, but not as stupid as their first choice Hear Ye, Hear Ye!.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2014 10:48 AM (AXDnw)

37 If the Attorneys General refuse to defend, who has standing? Are only left with the Ukrainian option?

Posted by: Goatweed at February 21, 2014 11:25 AM (8HrdX)

38 We must keep alive either Ginsberg or the illusion that she is breathing. Then Cruz, Palin, Paul, Walker, Sessions, King (Iowa)...can set the world straight in 2017.

Posted by: Goatweed at February 21, 2014 11:44 AM (8HrdX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

82kb generated in CPU 0.0509, elapsed 0.2298 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2032 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.