Judge who maligned media can’t get coverage of his Broadway shows: A longtime correspondent of this blog emailed tonight to note:
I notice that Judge Silberman’s long dissent-in-part in Tah v. Global Witness contains what is either a clever pun or a truly inspired typographical error. On page three of his dissenting opinion he writes:
“In that deal, Global Witness asserted that the National Oil Company paid bribes to legislators on behalf of the Broadway Consolidated oil company to secure ratification of its purchase. J.A. 68; see also J.A. 84 (noting that the National Oil Company had also paid bribes on behalf of Oranto Petroleum). And now, Exxon was stepping into Broadway’s shows.”
Plainly, under ordinary circumstances, the last word “shows” should be “shoes.” On the other hand, Broadway has shows; that is even the point of Broadway.
So either Judge Silberman is making an offhand joke about Broadway, center of the stage world, or he is the victim of a truly inspired mistranscription or other typo. Either way, this paragraph has happy feet.
No doubt the mainstream media outlets can sympathize with this error.
“Bayer Won’t Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Reverse Roundup Loss”: Joel Rosenblatt of Bloomberg News has this report.
“Federal District Court Reversal Rates, Part 2: Experience and Age, Again.” James Daily has this post at The Juris Lab.
“Supreme Court justices meet in person for first time in a year; All nine justices have been fully vaccinated”: Pete Williams of NBC News has this report.
And Paul Best of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court meets in person for first time in more than a year; Oral arguments will still be held by teleconference through the spring.”
“Property Rights at the Supreme Court: Can a state order owners to let the public use land without compensation?” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.
In December 2020, The University of Chicago Law Review Online published “a series of short remembrances of Judge Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in honor of her twenty-five years (and counting) on the bench”: Law professor David Freeman Engstrom had an essay titled “Oboe Judging.”
Law professor Zachary D. Clopton had an essay titled “Judge Diane P. Wood: A True Friend.”
Law professor Tejas N. Narechania had an essay titled “Judge Wood and the Human Side of Judging.”
And Elizabeth A. Reese had an essay titled “What Judge Wood Taught Me About Glass Cages.”
“The Corpus and the Courts”: Law professor Kevin Tobia has this essay at The University of Chicago Law Review Online.
“What Did Garamond Do to Deserve a D.C. Court’s Wrath?” Elena DeBré has this essay online at Slate.
“Neil Gorsuch Supports an Originalist Theory That Would Destroy Modern Governance; Just one problem: It’s bunk.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
The Columbia Law Review has posted online its newly published article by law professors Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley titled “Delegation at the Founding.”
“Federal Judge Says Media Is Anti-GOP ‘Threat to Democracy'”: Erik Larson of Bloomberg News has this report.
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Federal judge pens dissent slamming decades-old press protections; D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe amounted to an assault on a landmark Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law.”
In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Federal Judge Uses Dissent to Rant About Liberal Media Bias and ‘Big Tech’ Censorship; Judge Laurence Silberman condemned the mainstream press as ‘virtually Democratic Party broadsheets’ and praised Fox News.”
And at “Above the Law,” Kathryn Rubino has a post titled “What In the Q Is This Federal Judge Going On About? At least(?) it’s only a dissent.”
Circuit Judge David S. Tatel wrote today’s majority opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in which Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan joined. And you can access Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman‘s opinion dissenting in part at this link.
“The Federal Courts Have a Transparency Problem. Here’s How We Can Fix It. The third branch says it’s the most transparent when it comes to its work, but it’s the least transparent when it comes to the perks.” Gabe Roth has this essay online at The National Law Journal.
“Can Biden ‘rebalance’ the judiciary?” Russell Wheeler has this post at the “FixGov” blog of the Brookings Institution.
“Nonunanimous juries — recently ruled unconstitutional — convicted hundreds sitting in Oregon prisons. Now, they want a fair trial.” Jaimie Ding has this front page article in today’s edition of The Oregonian.
“Federal Circuit Judges Seek First Black Colleague as Seat Opens”: Perry Cooper of Bloomberg Law has this report. Cooper also tweeted here about some interesting stuff that didn’t make it into her article.
Over on Twitter, I have just posted this poll in which you can choose to cast a vote within the next 23 hours or so:
#AppellateTwitter — When a filing is served on you electronically but other counsel nevertheless sends you a paper copy, is your response:
Thanks that’s helpful.
I don’t need more paper.
It depends.
I will report back on the results tomorrow.
“A farmer’s feud with workers union leads to high-stakes Supreme Court showdown”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
“Biden poised to announce first wave of nominations to reshape U.S. courts; One prospect generating buzz is District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, whose expected appointment to a key appeals court could signal a future Supreme Court nomination”: Mike Memoli and Sahil Kapur of NBC News have this report.
“Supreme Court conservatives want to topple abortion rights — but can’t seem to agree on how”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.
“Pandemic Revives Old Courtroom Argument: To Robe, or Not to Robe? As a precaution, judges and lawyers in India’s highest courts were freed from their black gowns, drawing cheers and objections.” Shan Li had this front page article in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
