🤡 🚗

https://t.co/d631oW8q7m pic.twitter.com/DcxIZIO8SC

— Cody Johnston (@drmistercody) January 9, 2023

Sure you do.

Elon Musk fired Twitter's entire staff in Brazil except a few salespeople.

Among those fired: "eight people who moderated content on the platform in order to catch posts that broke its rules against incitement to violence and misinformation."https://t.co/3mRKHuPX2O pic.twitter.com/Oud88DALEc

— Samuel Oakford (@samueloakford) January 9, 2023

In related news:

Ratio hall of famer https://t.co/5EHWdmz001

— Schooley (@Rschooley) January 9, 2023

"And you won’t look at those allegations of sexual assault against my husband.”

And since we’re talking about clowns:

Tell me that you've never been to a #SCOTUS argument without telling me that you've never been to a #SCOTUS argument... https://t.co/NTvxPGBWO2

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) January 9, 2023

And then there's the other problem(s) with this concept:

You have to at least 100x this offer if you want serious interest. Arguing in front of the Supreme Court is one of the most prestigious things in law, and often the outcomes themselves will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

— Michael Wang (@immichaelwang) January 9, 2023

I’ve mentioned before that to appear in a federal courtroom, you have to be licensed in that court. It’s not an onerous burden, but it allows the court to control clowns who waste judicial resources. It takes a lawsuit, for example, to remove a Texas lawyer’s license. It takes a federal judge speaking to the clerk (basically) to lose your federal license.

I knew a lot of lawyers licensed in the Western District of Texas when I was in Austin. I knew only one lawyer who sought, and received, a license to argue a case before the Supreme Court. You pretty much get that license for that reason, and keep it so long as you don’t abuse it. It’s not something a practicing lawyer takes lightly.

And you go to oral arguments on behalf of a client; not because you want to test out your rhetorical (or technological) skills. The malpractice you would commit by accepting this offer really wouldn’t make it appealing.*

This is a clownish idea by very ignorant people.

We have upcoming cases in municipal (traffic) court next month. But the haters will say “traffic court is too simple for GPT.”

So we are making this serious offer, contingent on us coming to a formal agreement and all rules being followed.

Please contact me if interested!

— Joshua Browder (@jbrowder1) January 9, 2023

Had they merely talked to a practicing litigator, they could have saved themselves the trouble of the tweet.

*Professor Vladeck is an academic, not a practicing litigator. The litigator would not first think “The rules won’t allow it!”, but: “Why would I do a damned fool thing like that in representing my client?” If she spent that much time thinking about it.

Lagniappe:*

there is a wise man among us https://t.co/zBttwNwYN5

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) January 9, 2023

I’m sure this has something to do with expanding the scope and scale of consciousness so we can understand the universe. Or maybe it’s just the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

Is the moon in the seventh house? Or is Jupiter aligned with Mars? 

Or maybe Elmo got into the LSD at last.

Just wondering…

*People aren’t film projectors, either. Does this make movies objectively superior to live plays?