gregoryhorowitz.bsky.social
Recovering from 30+ years as a litigator, consumed with hatred for Trump to an unhealthy degree
124 posts
181 followers
166 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I guess this woman has some mysterious power, because once I finished watching this the first words out of my mouth were indeed “Jesus Christ”
comment in response to
post
No one can deny Trump has tried? BS! Trump has done everything he can to avoid angering Putin, his sponsor.
comment in response to
post
It should be “for fucks’ sake”, not on behalf of all fucks but on behalf of multiple fucks. “I don’t give a fuck” means I don’t care much, so a single fuck is not a meaningful amount. “FFS” means something is important, so it has to be on the sake of more than one fuck.
comment in response to
post
You omitted one of the most important reasons: Automation has been steadily eliminating manufacturing (and mining) jobs, at a rapidly increasing rate.
comment in response to
post
Also, let us tell you a thing or two about air.
comment in response to
post
Judge Xinis can implement meaningful sanctions: Where a party fails to comply with discovery, a disputed fact can be deemed established and evidence to the contrary excluded. For example, failure to produce evidence of gang membership can result in a holding that no such evidence exists.
comment in response to
post
The center justification format makes this look like religious text. It’s particularly ironic when the words themselves are far right justification.
comment in response to
post
In my last trial, I was taking my expert through a deck of color-coded graphs when the judge told me he was colorblind. I asked if he was familiar with Alice’s Restaurant. He was, so I said “this is a typical case of colorblind justice and there’s nothing I can do about it.” Mission accomplished.
comment in response to
post
The hardest part of cross-examination was rehearsing surrealistic mock questioning in bed the night before, while supposedly sleeping. My god it was exciting, and fun, and I miss it, but it’s just not in me anymore.
comment in response to
post
Trump openly says Alito was “correctly” trying to delay the TRO long enough to “deport” more people, even though Alito was expressly saying a TRO was not merited because there was no basis to believe the government would go ahead with deportations. In other words, “Sammy is my obedient cuck.”
comment in response to
post
She figures that with the Trump economy cash is her safest asset. Not so safe: she should put it all in gold.
comment in response to
post
I’m still waiting for hearing aids with a camera and facial recognition that can whisper in your ear who you’re talking to and why you’re supposed to recognize them.
comment in response to
post
Not to forget: Ivana testified under oath that Donald yanked out chunks of her hair and then raped her. True, after she received a hefty divorce settlement she clarified that she didn’t mean “rape in the legal sense,” only that he forced himself on her sexually. I think there’s a word for that.
comment in response to
post
I’ve read the masterful opinion twice, and the NYT calling it “sternly worded” was a horrible understatement. “Clarion call” is precisely the phrase that came to my mind.
comment in response to
post
Not including Elon Musk, of course.
comment in response to
post
Sadly, this is one slippery slope the Supreme Court looks very tempted to slide down. Wheeee!!!
comment in response to
post
People who call everything they don’t like terrorism are language terrorists.
comment in response to
post
Actually, the only context in which the issue would be presented is a weasel firm failed, in Trump‘s view, to perform adequately. Either Trump would then reinstate the (actual or threatened) order, which would be swiftly blocked, or go to court to compel performance, which would be swiftly denied.
comment in response to
post
This is not where we are headed. It’s where we are.
comment in response to
post
Musk is right. That’s why French Bulldogs are so brilliant.
comment in response to
post
Would somebody, anybody, please take note that the “contracts” are plainly unenforceable because they are void as against public policy? See Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 178.
comment in response to
post
Again, and for the tenth time, these agreements are completely worthless and unenforceable as contrary to public policy. Just one more reason why Brad Karp is a useless waste of carbon who is deluding himself if he thinks the world wouldn’t be a better place without him.
comment in response to
post
These agreements are void as against public policy in any event, therefore unenforceable. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 178.
comment in response to
post
If you can call it a spine. How many times do you think Roberts can try to repeat the Marbury v Madison dodge — stating a strong principle but finding a weaselly way to avoid actual enforcement — before we reach the Trump “Nyah Nyah you can’t make me” moment?
comment in response to
post
As is all too often the case, that was the wrong follow-up question. The right one would have been “So you have the ability to do that?”
comment in response to
post
I did back then as well, and received my copy but sadly it was not signed (in this dimension, at least). I was hoping to bring it to one of @alicefraser.bsky.social’s shows in NYC, devastated to hear that she has been forced to cancel due to the complete shitshow of a government we’re stuck with.
comment in response to
post
I’m particularly glad our lovely children were here to hear that.
comment in response to
post
You should delete this, it’s fake. We need to be scrupulously honest and credible — the actual truth is horrifying enough.
comment in response to
post
I just read the challenged quotes and am astonished that an attorney could file this complaint without getting hit with Rule 11 sanctions.