Big Law Has a Liberal Bias (Live from Vanderbilt University)

Political pain yielding political change via Chevron.

By and
89

Sarah and David brave the tundras of the Vanderbilt campus to discuss left-leaning bias in pro-bono cases before diving into the details of Fulton County DA Fani Willis’ possibly salacious hires.

The Agenda:

—Left-leaning bias academic study
—Trouble in paradise for Fani Willis
—Top 10 tips from an Indiana Law Clerk
—Defining “colorable” and “to cabin”
—Alec Baldwin and new standards for Hollywood sets
—Chevron listener question
—Live Q&A

Show Notes:

—Pierson v. Post

By and
Comments (89)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    O.W.L.

    I have a question about the consequences of overturning Chevron. If it is overturned later this year, and Trump is elected and implements his Project 25 plan next year, and puts his goons in charge of all of the gov’t agencies, won’t we be happy that Chevron is gone?

    It seems like you only want regulators taking a strong hand if it’s your guys doing the regulating. Am I missing something?

    Collapse
  2. Brittany Simmons

    David, your barracks lawyer reference made me laugh a lot. In true barracks lawyer form, you referenced a fictional FM - which stands for field manual - and is doctrine so therefore not regulatory. A reference to an AR (Army regulation) would indeed have some punitive or non- judicial measures if not followed.
    Your Friendly AO Retired MP LTC

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Seth

    David is spot on regarding gun safety. Every responsible gun owner knows you check if a gun is loaded once it enters your hands, you treat every gun as loaded regardless, you never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shot, and you are always aware of the direction of the barrel.

    Alec seemingly violated every one of these safety principles. But there is also the interesting point that at least two of these principles have to get violated when making a movie with gun fights.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      Even amongst actors, there is disagreement on whether one should check with regards to loaded/unloaded.

      Some think along the lines of "that's the Armorer's job and I don't want to show disrespect by doing it again" and some think "I am ultimately responsible here so I'm going to do this regardless of the extra time/potential issues".

      I'm definitely in the "I'd check anyway" camp.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Witt Case

    Political bias in various careers has always been interesting to me. I fear we paint the motivations and whys of the bias in the light that best appeals to our own bias.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    Regarding Fani Willis, I think the argument that she appointed the prosecutor for an inappropriate reason (i.e. personal gain) may have more relevance/traction than Sarah and David suggest. Standing on its own, it could be a reason to disqualify (though, as with selective prosecution, the bar is high). In addition, if she did not follow the proper procedures in appointing the prosecutor those violations look worse. Rather than being a technical issue that could be overlooked and or retrospectively fixed, I think the possible corrupt motive makes removal of the prosecutor the more appropriate remedy. To be clear, much still needs to be proven in order to get to that conclusion but one can certainly see the basis for a claim.

    Collapse
    1. Wojtek

      Just for balance, here’s a piece by Sabrina Haake:
      https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/trumped-up-nonsense-smearing-fani-willis-wont-get-donald-off-the-hook-in-georgia/

      I haven’t parsed either the law or the evidence, so I find it hard to form an opinion, but, to my non-lawyer ear, Haake’s sounds compelling, if true.

      Collapse
  6. Graeme.Edgeler

    The discussion of people on the left simply not knowing the actual conservative arguments against Chevron deference is an example of something relatively common. Given liberal dominance of major news media and eg colleges, it's largely impossible for mainstream conservatives not to to have heard liberal arguments and talking points, in a way which is not true of he reverse.
    My go to example tends to be one where Sarah Palin, not long after her vice-presidential run made a shorthand reference to the well-known conservative Christian talking point that the words "separation of Church and state" do not appear in the first amendment. Anyone who has heard a conservative stump on the issue knows this talking point, but literally no-one in the room with Palin, and none of the reporters covering what they viewed as a gaffe (Palin doesn't even know what the first amendment is!) had any idea the point she was making, nor how common a point it is to make.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Oh BS. Everyone knows that phrase is from a letter to the Danbury Baptists. It was JEFFERSON himself saying what he thought the first amendment acted as...a wall of separation between church and state.

      The reason conservatives say it is not because liberals don't know it...it's because they didn't, and now that they have learned it, assume we are all so misinformed as they were.

      Collapse
      1. Graeme.Edgeler

        My point is not that it is a good argument, or bad argument. My point is that a bunch of people responded to the point showing they had no idea it was commonly said. They thought that Palin was surprised to find out that the first amendment protected religion.

        Another example would be liberal media response to people calling Jan 6 "largely peaceful" who simply have no idea that phrase originates from biased reporting of particular BLM protests, and is being used to call that out to make a point.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Buddy Atkins

      I don't have much to go off of beyond my own anecdotal experiences, but I don't feel like this is true anymore. Or at least not meaningfully true across the board.

      The depth of familiarity and understanding that almost everyone has on opposing viewpoints or arguments comes not from proponents of those viewpoints, but from those within their echo chamber mentioning them and beating up on straw man versions of them.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Bean

    Two objections to David's points.

    First, Singapore is not ethnically or religiously homogenous. They have three large ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay, Indian) and have to do a fair bit of balancing. Some of the PAP's long-term success is probably down to internal culture, and some is that I agree that there's less diversity of situation and interest within the population than you have in the US. It helps that everywhere is like an hour by train from everywhere else.

    Second, I disagree that Congress has exceptional competence in dealing with the military, particularly that the high percentage of veterans gives them this. The military trains people to do their current job, not in broad theory, and most of them did a tour, then got out. The number of people with the training and experience to do a good job of understanding everything that's going on is pretty small, and a lot of people suffer from delusions about how much they know (John McCain on CAS springs to mind). Yes, Lindsey Graham is going to know more about the military than a random civilian, but he was fundamentally a lawyer for the military, and not someone who gets training in strategy. I suspect that David may have missed this because one of the better ways to learn this kind of stuff is by being interested in military history and practice, and it's hard to see that they don't teach this stuff widely if you know it already.

    I've expanded on this at https://www.navalgazing.net/The-Defense-Information-Pipeline.

    Collapse
  8. Joe Fisher

    Unrealted to this episode, but can a lawyer explain how it's legal to ban someone from working in an industry? What gives government that power? Martin Skrelli just had his ban upheld by the appeals court.

    Collapse
    1. Michael M

      Regulated industry. Think lawyers, doctors, financial managers, and hairstylists (??!!)

      Collapse
      1. Joe Fisher

        I could see government saying you can't work as a doctor if you've committed relevant crimes, but he's been banned from working in an entire industry from a supposedly unrelated felony. That seems like pretty broad power doesn't it?

        Collapse
        1. Michael M

          Well, sure it’s a fairly broad power. I would hope, however, you would prefer to ban doctors from practicing medicine because, for instance, they didn’t go to medical school, moreso than whether they stole money or recklessly exceeded the speed limit.

          Collapse
          1. Joe Fisher

            100% and what were talking about here, if I understand correctly which I almost certainly don't, is that he was banned from working in the pharma industry because of a conviction for a felony unrelated to the pharma industry. That seems wild to me that government has that kind of power. We're not talking about denying a license here, they're saying "you can't get a job as a secretary at Phizer"

            Willing to admit my understanding is lacking.

            Collapse
  9. Patrick Oliver Jones

    As an actor on both movie sets and TV sets, and as someone who has handled guns with blanks in live theater productions, I did want to add a bit of context to some of the comments here. (Although Echack and M. Bailey have given quite a bit of helpful background.)As was mentioned and highlighted by both Sarah and David, facts are of upmost importance in cases. And fact of the matter is there is a strictly adhered to chain of command when it comes to the jobs and functions on a TV or movie set. The phrase “stay in your lane“ heavily applies here. When I’m on set sitting at a desk, for example, and the pen holder next to me needs to be moved, I cannot move it. There is someone either in the props or set department who has to come and move it to the desire location. This structure of duties of who does what and when applies to all areas, whether on the set or behind-the-scenes. If I am handed a guitar, to use annother example, it is to be assumed by me that the strings are put on correctly and the guitar itself has been tuned. It is not my job, nor can I on my own adjust the strings in anyway. That is someone else’s job. So this delineation of jobs and responsibilities also applies to the use of firearms, probably even more so because of the potential danger involved. While it is the actor’s responsibility to maintain their own safety, it is not their responsibility to check or double check all weapons before using them. That is the sole responsibility of the first assistant director and/or the firearms expert on set. This delineation of the various jobs and functions on site allow for each department to be both fully responsible and fully aware of what happens to all items and pieces within their care. That way nothing happens outside of their specific knowledge and handling of the item in question. Now, all that to say that if it can be proved that Baldwin was playing around with the gun or using it in a way that was not specifically directed, then he would not only be breaking on set protocols, but I imagine (since I’m not a lawyer, but have only played one on TV) his legal culpability would likely be increased as well.

    P.S. I have thought of joining Dispatch on many occasions before, and I’ve had many opinions about what’s been said on the podcast, but ultimately opted not to spend the money. However, once David went off and started applying outside standards to what happens on a movie set, then I couldn’t let his comments go unanswered. Happy to be here. :)

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Seth

      I respect your expertise and am glad you shared it. I'm even more happy to hear you recently joined The Dispatch!

      That said, in David's defense and as someone who grew up with guns, it is entirely foreign to me that you wouldn't check to see if a gun is loaded once it enters your hands. I, and many that grew up in a certain American gun culture, would be unable NOT to check since it is automatic.

      And the guitar example has limitations, in my view. Checking to see if a guitar is tuned correctly may fundamentally alter the prop's tuning, and therefore its intent. Checking to see if a gun is loaded does not alter it, unless of course it is loaded!

      Collapse
      1. Patrick Oliver Jones

        I appreciate it and hope to enjoy Dispatch.

        To your comments regarding being a gun owner, that was the reason I made my initial comments to distinguish the sharp difference between the actions and responsibilities of an actor on a set and the actions and responsibilities an individual gun owner may have on his/her own.

        While a guitar obviously isn’t a dangerous weapon like a gun, the analogy I made was to illustrate a hierarchy of command and responsibility on a film/TV set. A guitar owner would do certain things to their own guitar that they cannot do to an onset guitar. Similarly, a gun comes with extra security measures and it is up to each link in the chain of command to be responsible for what happens before it gets to an actor. It is for such reasons why from the smallest item to the biggest prop or set piece, each department is fully in control of their items. Actors nor anyone else can cross those lines on a set to do the job of someone else, this is precisely to contain any issues but also to more clearly identify and locate problems that may come up.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      PaulH

      Excellent comment. I do think there is a big difference between David relying on a statement by Sarah (or even a gun dealer) that a gun is unloaded and an actor relying on statement made by a trained professional (who has a defined responsibility to ensure safety) that a gun is unloaded or loaded with blanks. I am having trouble seeing how doing the latter is negligent.

      Collapse
    3. Michael M

      Well said

      Collapse
  10. Michael M

    On the Alec Baldwin thing - When this first happened (a year or two ago?), the DA publicly made a statement to the effect that a gun should NEVER be pointed at an individual, let alone fired, UNLESS THERE IS A DEFENSIBLE REASON FOR SHOOTING TO KILL THAT PERSON.

    That was obviously a stupid, stupid statement in the context of a movie production. Under that standard, Clint Eastwood should have been locked up for good 50 years ago. But he wasn’t, because people with brains don’t apply that standard to actors whose actual job it is to point guns at people and go “bang”.

    Clearly movie set safety protocols need to be followed. But David, Sarah is correct here. Your gun store chamber-clearing example is completely irrelevant. This is a movie set. He was told it was a cold gun, by the people paid to do so. The idea of actors accepting a “cold” gun, then every time checking the chamber to confirm the loaded ammunition is a blank, is absurd.

    It is the duty of every driver to avoid recklessly driving an unsafe car at high speeds. But do race car drivers have to check each tire after a pit stop to confirm each wheel is securely attached before driving at 200 mph past crowds of thousands of spectators? No. And if a wheel does fly off and hit/kill spectators, is the driver liable for negligence/reckless endangerment/whatever? No.

    Collapse
Load More