You’re very welcome, glad to share the gospel according to Harry. Also thanks for banging out that killer summary, I should have done that myself but excuse excuse.
No problem. (I’m actually here myself right now because I’m putting off some other stuff, lol.) I’d never actually seen or heard of Harry Litman before today, and I stay well away from opinions until I’ve had a chance to vet the source (which means in practice that I just generally avoid commentators in general, especially political or legal) so this is great, I have a new reliably sane one to listen to.
But I confess to being confused on one point: when Litman is discussing mandamus at length, from about 12:00 forward, after acknowledging that the 11th could just deny it, he then discusses a grant of mandamus from the 11th in terms of getting a whole new judge (13:30) “then you get a real judge who will move the case forward,” etc. I looked at the transcript to see if I’d missed anything, but no, that’s really where he meant to go.
As a layman, I understand a writ of mandamus to mean a simple order to complete the duties of an office; in this specific case, an order to compel Cannon to rule immediately on the specific questions Smith has presented.
Did Litman jump ahead to a third step where Cannon simply ignores such an order and gets replaced, or is the threat of disqualification, censure, or other judicial correction implied in mandamus in this context? I am aware of the history between the 11th and Aileen Cannon’s previous judicial efforts on Trump’s behalf, but have no real idea how mandamus works in practice.
I’d like to know because I don’t wanna get my hopes up, lol. But listening to that portion of Litman’s commentary makes it sound as though if Smith gets his writ of mandamus there’s a lot more than just that specific ruling at stake here.
From my view, it is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of any one take, even from someone as well credentialed as Harry.
To that point, one bugbear I am wary of is the inherent cover that lawyerly types tend to give to the Justice system writ large: namely, that it can self-police and correct for biases or bad actors. No legal source I’ve followed has yet to grapple with this blind spot specifically.
Which is to say, I’m right there beside you in being hesitant to overinvest in any one outcome.
With that, I’ll throw one more resource at you, and that is the Serious Trouble podcast. The cadence from this crew is much slower, but they bring a fair bit of levity to the table alongside some deep perspective from the angle of defense, and so I look forward to each episode. My hope is they will dive into a discussion around mandamus also, as I am just as flummoxed as you when it comes to understanding specifics.
Have a good one, and thanks again for the thoughtful conversation.
Regarding lawyers and the discussion of self-policing, I’ve seen it in person and I find your statement both accurate and restrained, lol. It’s the same with doctors: talk about personal and specific incidents of overt medical misbehavior with doctors and you can feel their sphincter tightening even from your own chair.
I don’t expect either group to take it on publicly without a great deal more cause than exists now, or perhaps even ever, because the personal, professional cost of being the one to start the movement would be extreme and never-ending. There is a tribalism evident in both professions that I don’t think will ever change, not least because throughout the centuries both groups have worked very hard to keep their professions closed guilds, literally, complete with their own deliberately obscure argots. Change begins with the individual, and unfortunately, at this point I personally think the attack against any insider publicly calling for change instead of keeping it hidden within the group would be merciless, no matter how extreme the problem.
I will definitely look into the Serious Trouble podcast. And thank you for the thoughtful conversation likewise.
You’re very welcome, glad to share the gospel according to Harry. Also thanks for banging out that killer summary, I should have done that myself but excuse excuse.
No problem. (I’m actually here myself right now because I’m putting off some other stuff, lol.) I’d never actually seen or heard of Harry Litman before today, and I stay well away from opinions until I’ve had a chance to vet the source (which means in practice that I just generally avoid commentators in general, especially political or legal) so this is great, I have a new reliably sane one to listen to.
But I confess to being confused on one point: when Litman is discussing mandamus at length, from about 12:00 forward, after acknowledging that the 11th could just deny it, he then discusses a grant of mandamus from the 11th in terms of getting a whole new judge (13:30) “then you get a real judge who will move the case forward,” etc. I looked at the transcript to see if I’d missed anything, but no, that’s really where he meant to go.
As a layman, I understand a writ of mandamus to mean a simple order to complete the duties of an office; in this specific case, an order to compel Cannon to rule immediately on the specific questions Smith has presented.
Did Litman jump ahead to a third step where Cannon simply ignores such an order and gets replaced, or is the threat of disqualification, censure, or other judicial correction implied in mandamus in this context? I am aware of the history between the 11th and Aileen Cannon’s previous judicial efforts on Trump’s behalf, but have no real idea how mandamus works in practice.
I’d like to know because I don’t wanna get my hopes up, lol. But listening to that portion of Litman’s commentary makes it sound as though if Smith gets his writ of mandamus there’s a lot more than just that specific ruling at stake here.
From my view, it is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of any one take, even from someone as well credentialed as Harry.
To that point, one bugbear I am wary of is the inherent cover that lawyerly types tend to give to the Justice system writ large: namely, that it can self-police and correct for biases or bad actors. No legal source I’ve followed has yet to grapple with this blind spot specifically.
Which is to say, I’m right there beside you in being hesitant to overinvest in any one outcome.
With that, I’ll throw one more resource at you, and that is the Serious Trouble podcast. The cadence from this crew is much slower, but they bring a fair bit of levity to the table alongside some deep perspective from the angle of defense, and so I look forward to each episode. My hope is they will dive into a discussion around mandamus also, as I am just as flummoxed as you when it comes to understanding specifics.
Have a good one, and thanks again for the thoughtful conversation.
Regarding lawyers and the discussion of self-policing, I’ve seen it in person and I find your statement both accurate and restrained, lol. It’s the same with doctors: talk about personal and specific incidents of overt medical misbehavior with doctors and you can feel their sphincter tightening even from your own chair.
I don’t expect either group to take it on publicly without a great deal more cause than exists now, or perhaps even ever, because the personal, professional cost of being the one to start the movement would be extreme and never-ending. There is a tribalism evident in both professions that I don’t think will ever change, not least because throughout the centuries both groups have worked very hard to keep their professions closed guilds, literally, complete with their own deliberately obscure argots. Change begins with the individual, and unfortunately, at this point I personally think the attack against any insider publicly calling for change instead of keeping it hidden within the group would be merciless, no matter how extreme the problem.
I will definitely look into the Serious Trouble podcast. And thank you for the thoughtful conversation likewise.