dctoedt.bsky.social
Now: (Mostly:) Part-time law prof. (course: advanced contract drafting); tech/IP attorney. Before: BigLaw partner, GC of public software company. TX, CA bars. Ex-Navy (USS Enterprise nuke SWO). Last name pronounced "Tate." https://www.OnContracts.com/About
210 posts
194 followers
458 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I'm not clear how you got ~that idea. I was being sarcastic. (Of course there's been racist bullshit in elections. That was the whole point of RBG's Shelby County dissent.)
comment in response to
post
It flips RBG's Shelby County dissent: "Throwing out preclearance [under the Voting Rights Act] when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." But consistency is for losers, right?
comment in response to
post
Another diff (albeit w/ Vietnam): LBJ, McNamara, et al., overlearned the lessons of Munich & WWII. Here, in contrast, the GOP seems to have learned zilch from Iraq and Afghanistan, *and is replaying their "the Dems lost China!" BS from the '50s.
comment in response to
post
But ~how, exactly??
Two thoughts that a Dem Congress & WH could do ~without a constitutional amendment:
(1) Triple the size of House of Repr. to match pop. growth since 435 number was fixed.
(2) Mandate ~no primaries, ranked-choice voting for gen. election.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys
comment in response to
post
Were you ever in? (IYKYK.)
comment in response to
post
3d-gen veteran here — who sees the Occam’s Razor analysis from a very different angle: The piss-poor marching in Trump’s birthday parade gave off strong vibes of malicious compliance by guys who didn’t GAFF and were PO’d about losing their weekend liberty.
comment in response to
post
Nit: Jed Bartlet. (The best TV show of all time.)
comment in response to
post
I have similar thoughts every time I have to spend clients’ money reviewing the N,000th variation of an NDA, consulting agrmt, etc., that largely say the same things BUT MIGHT NOT ….
comment in response to
post
Personalize the phrasing: “You’re being lied to.”
comment in response to
post
Pay no attention to all the oil-and-gas money being pumped into state officials' campaign funds — nothing to see there, move alone
comment in response to
post
Friendly amendment: “You’re being lied to by your government” — personalizes it a bit?
comment in response to
post
Like cartels in Mexico.
comment in response to
post
These dudes are naïve, thinking that if AI destroyed all jobs, it'd create "radical abundance" leading to UBI and higher living standards. Not a chance: Grifters and rent-seekers would find ways to capture the lion's share for themselves — and you know what they say about idle hands ....
comment in response to
post
General strike — shut down the whole [expletive] country for a few days, no exceptions except for things like hospitals.
comment in response to
post
It's just a matter of time before people invoke Stand Your Ground laws and start shooting at the unidentified kidnappers.
comment in response to
post
The parenthetical "(citation modified)" seems incoherent: The -citation- isn't modified, the -quotation- is.
comment in response to
post
A mass general strike — but of the whole freaking country.
comment in response to
post
"Disingenuous" — spelled L-Y-I-N-G S-A-C-K O-F ....
comment in response to
post
A friend says it should be referred to as "BUB" — the Butt-Ugly Bill.
comment in response to
post
A friend says it should be referred to as BUB: Butt-Ugly Bill.
comment in response to
post
The MSM, bored already with covering the Big Beautiful Bill, goes chasing off after the latest squirrel.
comment in response to
post
That works.
comment in response to
post
This comes up every so often — IIRC, military brass have said privately that a mere two-year term of mandatory service would be so short as to be more trouble and expense than it'd be worth — but that doesn't consider the civic benefits to the larger society. (Navy vet here.)
comment in response to
post
And Nixon actually served on active duty in the Navy during WWII, as (what looks like) a logistics officer in the South Pacific.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...
comment in response to
post
This has SUCH a "nose pressed up against the glass" vibe to it.
(Former BigLaw partner here, also former small public-company GC. )
comment in response to
post
Maybe because Dem leaders and voters have, I dunno, jobs and lives?
Granted, natural selection might favor the Greedy Oligarch Party's 24-7 focus on the next election.
If a party can't do what it takes to win elections, its other merits are of little relevance.
comment in response to
post
Again, serious question: What would qualify as "something more than strongly worded letters and lawsuits," and "boots on the ground"?
Should Dems in the House and Senate be thinking about their members from purple- and red states in 2026?
comment in response to
post
Serious question: What's your definition of "fight" that isn't happening, and what trade-offs do you see if Dems were to "fight" in that way?
comment in response to
post
My mistake (but an easy one to make these days ....)
comment in response to
post
That's what everyone said after the "grab 'em by the p**sy" blow-up in 2016, and after January 6th, and so on. And yet here we are.
comment in response to
post
From The Other Place in 2022: "I guess he's with jod now"
comment in response to
post
(Also, Harry’s Razors are actually worth it)
comment in response to
post
Indeed — I switched to Harry's razors and greatly prefer them; my wife asked me to get the women's counterpart, Flamingo, and recently said she loves them.
comment in response to
post
Please don't put words in my mouth. There's a balance to be struck between creatives' natural impulse to say "MINE!" and the centuries-old law that, while we certainly need incentives for creatives, their /legal/ rights only go so far.
AI is a newish phenomenon. We'll find a balance. Be patient.
comment in response to
post
I’m an IP lawyer by trade (and author of two published legal books myself), so yes, I do know that we have copyrights. I also know that some things aren’t treated as infringement, no matter how much some creative types wish it were otherwise.
comment in response to
post
It's not obvious that our fields overlap to any significant degree, so it's not clear that I'd be benefiting from "theft" of -your- work.
Also: In U.S. law, creatives don't have "natural rights" in their work — it's been that way since the Founding.
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/doc...