Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

I keep noticing comments from devs who are silently checking out Regardless of the level of scrutiny that has to be applied to ai PRs (it's a separate conversation) - this is a failure of communication from the leadership in the org

48,558 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Everybody gangster until they are standing in front of SCOTUS getting hammered on the difference between facial and as applied equal protection challenges. Hashim Mooppan is an absolute chad. He works in the solicitor's general office and provided oral arguments on behalf of the federal government this morning in the Hecox / BPJ cases. The justices saved the hardest, most technical questions for him, and I don't mean scientifically technical, I mean legally technical - he impact of SCOTUS precedent regarding facial equal protection challenges to a law and "as applied" challenges. A hypothetical facial challenge is "This law denies women the right to vote. It's unconstitutional." The law, on its face, violates the equal protection rights of all women. An as applied challenge is "This law allows a single mother to put a child up for adoption without notice to or consent of the father. This may be reasonable for fathers who are absent, but it is unreasonable *as applied* to me, a father who is involved in the life of the child and has a constitutional right to maintain my relationship with my child." (A case called Lehr v. Robertson.) Hecox made claims that Idaho's law was not constitutional as applied to him because his testosterone had been lowered by hormones and blockers, even if it might have been constitutionally applied to other boys. Of course, if any person could contest an otherwise constitutional law because their individual circumstances no matter how rare then no law could be confidently enforced, so there are cases discussing this issue and how analysis of as applied claims intersects with the level of scrutiny applied to facial claims. See, it's complicated, it's already taken me a very long post just to scratch the surface. Mr. Mooppan’s brain is not limited to 140 character thoughts. In the exchange below, Justice Jackson has interrupted him while he is answering a question from Justice Kagan asking why Hecox shouldn’t be able to argue that Idaho’s law is unconstitutional because of his individual circumstances, even if it makes sense for 99.9999% of other boys and men. Jackson raises two cases barely discussed in the written briefs and cites a sentence from one of them that is interpreting the other. One is the Lehr case from which I took the hypothetical above. Mr. Mooppan responds, explaining to Justice Jackson how that specific sentence fits into the overall case and how both of the cases she mentions actually support his argument and that SCOTUS has never taken the position she is arguing. He knew one of the justices would ask about those cases. He memorized all of the most important parts of them (confident that he could separate what was important from what wasn’t) and was prepared to address any reference to those cases that would hurt his case. This is remarkable lawyering. None of the other attorneys for the ACLU, Idaho, or West Virginia has this command of this issue. He owned them all.

Boris Spider

968,530 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten