You so deserve all the things you are asking for and then some. I hope you get the paid tv gig you’ve been invaluable in dissecting these cases for us. Thank you!❤️
I love your stuff and do recommend you a lot. Sadly almost none of my friends are lawyers. I know some look at you because they come to me cross-eyed and ask “what exactly is he saying.” This does NOT mean you are hard to understand except for people who think legal discussions are an obscure dialect from some small tribe, perhaps in the Amazon basin. Do not dumb things down!! I’m delighted to have such a solid basis for my translations.
So know that even if if these folks won’t subscribe, you are doing a great job, indirectly, of EDUCATING them.
I was wrong to sign up for an annual subscription. I did not realize that I could not get a refund for time after a cancellation if I decided I was not completely satisfied with your columns. Some were very interesting to me, but not enough to continue. I will pay monthly for any and all subscriptions I sign up for after this experience. Sorry, and good luck! P. Babcock
Yes, like an annual subscription to a magazine, it’s billed when you order it. That’s why it’s a discounted rate from the monthly rate. Sorry to see you go, though, and do hope you continue reading as a free subscriber, at least.
In my lifetime, legal theory has morphed from freedom of association all the way to compelled speech. It would seem an interesting subject. Of course I’ll probably write on it too but anyway, it seems like an interesting subject.
Thank you for your detailed coverage of the legal developments this past year--it is much appreciated! I respectfully disagree with Jordan.
Thanks much.
You so deserve all the things you are asking for and then some. I hope you get the paid tv gig you’ve been invaluable in dissecting these cases for us. Thank you!❤️
Thanks much!
I love your stuff and do recommend you a lot. Sadly almost none of my friends are lawyers. I know some look at you because they come to me cross-eyed and ask “what exactly is he saying.” This does NOT mean you are hard to understand except for people who think legal discussions are an obscure dialect from some small tribe, perhaps in the Amazon basin. Do not dumb things down!! I’m delighted to have such a solid basis for my translations.
So know that even if if these folks won’t subscribe, you are doing a great job, indirectly, of EDUCATING them.
I was wrong to sign up for an annual subscription. I did not realize that I could not get a refund for time after a cancellation if I decided I was not completely satisfied with your columns. Some were very interesting to me, but not enough to continue. I will pay monthly for any and all subscriptions I sign up for after this experience. Sorry, and good luck! P. Babcock
Yes, like an annual subscription to a magazine, it’s billed when you order it. That’s why it’s a discounted rate from the monthly rate. Sorry to see you go, though, and do hope you continue reading as a free subscriber, at least.
I’m wondering if you’re going to do a more detailed analysis on the whole question of compelled speech.
Honestly, probably only insofar as it becomes specifically relevant going forward (which, I’m sure it will, but).
In my lifetime, legal theory has morphed from freedom of association all the way to compelled speech. It would seem an interesting subject. Of course I’ll probably write on it too but anyway, it seems like an interesting subject.
More legal journalism and less political advocacy please. I will miss looking forward to your SCOTUS updates until next term.
Somewhat predictable, but taken, comment. Thanks for reading, Jordan.
It would help if the SCOTUS engaged in better legal reasoning and less political advocacy.