What does Justice Anthony Kennedy mean by &#39;you&#39;re recused&#39;? I refer to 71:31. 71:31 And Hugo Black stands up and stalks out 71:34 of the room, which is our polite way of saying, you're recused. 71:38 And so, the argument went on. 71:41 And at the end of the argument, the attorney 71:43 said, now, I don't know why Hugo did that, 71:45 because he's my cousin. Did Kennedy J misspeak by using the personal pronoun 'you're'? Isn't the Justice who 'stands up and stalks out of the room' the one who's recusing himself (no female justices then)? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is Kennedy J implying a conflict of interest between the lawyer and Black J as they're cousins?
As I understand the story, Black recused himself because the attorney was his cousin. I think the joke is that the attorney thought it wasn't necessary for Black to do so, perhaps because the attorney didn't understand how seriously conflicts of interest are taken. I don't think Kennedy misspoke; I think he's just used the generic you construct, in which "you" is used as an impersonal pronoun instead of "one". His sentence could be rephrased more formally as: Hugo Black stands up and stalks out of the room, which among Supreme Court justices is a polite way to say that one is recused. In other words, Black's action is equivalent to him saying "I am recused".
I found the case in an episode of Amicus (podcast). Mark Joseph Stern was on the show and Dahlia Lithwick referred to an article he had written about the subject. Here is a quote from the article: In the 1990s, Thomas disapproved of race-conscious redistricting designed to empower black Democrats; today, he objects to race-conscious redistricting designed to empower white Republicans. In the 1990s, all the conservative justices voted to not allow taking race in to account to create solidly black districts. All the liberals said that it would be ok. Now (in Cooper v. Harris) all the liberals are saying it is not ok to take race in to account when destroying Democratic districts through gerrymandering and the all the conservatives said it would be ok, save Clarence Thomas, who remained consistent with the previous ruling, giving the liberal justices a victory.
If six justices decided that the case were sufficiently important, they could refrain from recusing themselves so as to be able to hear it. If that didn't happen, the lower court's ruling would stand, as you suggest. If I understand this rule correctly, if four justices had conflicts of interest, the court would lack a quorum. That's more likely, though admittedly very unlikely. However unlikely it may be, it has actually happened (for example, Shao v. Roberts).
From what I can determine, there has not been a legal challenge to the practice that reached a high enough level to get on my radar, so it's not clearly prohibited or allowed. Turning to the relevant federal regulations, the implementation of the Fair Housing Act, the law hinges in part on an Aggrieved person includes any person who— (a) Claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice; or (b) Believes that such person will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur. In order to sue a university because they offer sex-separated halls, floors or rooms, a plaintiff would have to show that they have been harmed by being given such a choice. Reading the prohibitions in §100.50, there is no obvious "Discriminat[ion] in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities", and it does not "otherwise makes unavailable or denies dwellings". Cases like McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (a case putting an end to the "separate but equal" doctrine) include reference to the fact that appellant was harmed ("The restrictions imposed upon appellant impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession"). Analogously, the relatively rare black-only residences of UC Davis and Cal State LA might be targeted in a discrimination suit, if plaintiffs can make the required legal argument that there is harm.
I haven't used the extension, but here are the concerns I would have: Does RECAP detect and handle documents filed under seal? Under some circumstances, IIRC, Pacer gives certain attorneys access to documents sealed from the general public. If you access these sealed documents through PACER and thereby submit them to the RECAP public repository, you have violated the Court order sealing the documents and might well be found in contempt. It is not unheard of for a Court to order a document replaced by a corrected version; this is most common when a document was inadvertently filed with information not redacted that should have been. As long as nobody but the parties and their lawyers have accessed it, this can prevent that information from being public. If you log on to PACER and see your client's personal information...you can no longer keep it private by asking the Court for that remedy, because you just submitted it to a public repository. Enjoy your malpractice suit. Does the use of RECAP constitute a waiver of work product protection? Under some (admittedly limited) circumstances, your use of PACER might constitute attorney work product, which would ordinarily be protected from disclosure in a manner similar to a privilege. Revealing your research pattern to a third party could waive that protection.
"Double jeopardy" applies to a criminal proceeding, that is one that needs to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," and involves criminal sanctions such as jail time. Once OJ was acquitted of criminal charges, he couldn't be tried again as a "criminal." The second trial was a civil trial, with a "lesser" standard of proof (preponderance of evidence), and lesser "damages" (money, not jail time). So even though the facts were the same, OJ was accused of violating a different standard, that is a different "law" so to speak. He could be tried for a "tort" just not a crime. Or put another way, "wrongful death" is not the same as murder. The latter requires intent. Wrongful death suggests "tortious" negligence, but not necessarily intent.
What are the things that I should prepare for this session, in terms of order of dress, language, content? Dress In an actual court room, suit and tie is preferred for men and formal dress for women for lawyers and professionals. Your "Sunday best" or what you would wear to work on a typical day would be appropriate if you don't have a suit and tie or the equivalent. Avoid nightclub looks, any garment or ornament with a message, or more than minimal jewelry or accessories. For a video testimony, solids come across better than complex patterns if the video resolution turns out to be low. Your clothing should not be a message other than that you are a respectful reputable member of the community. Language and Content You should avoid colloquialism or profanity (except in a quotation from someone else about what they said out of court), but should not try to affect an accent or dialect that you cannot speak naturally. If you grew up in rural West Virginia, don't try to pretend you grew up on the Harvard University campus. If you need an interpreter, you should let someone know in advance as this can be arranged. Generally, you should only speak in response to question, and should leave a "beat" between being asked and answering any question in case someone says "I object" before you start to answer. You should listen to the question you are asked, truthfully answer the question you were actually asked (not necessarily the one that was intended to be asked), and stop when you have answered it. (This is harder than it seems.) If asked an open ended question, take whatever time it takes to answer it completely. It is appropriate to instead ask for clarification of a question if you couldn't hear it properly or if you don't understand it because it uses a word you don't understand. If the question assumes something that isn't true, correct that wrong assumption. For example: "what did you see the defendant doing at the football game on Sunday?" "I didn't see the defendant doing anything at the football game on Sunday because he was having dinner with me after the baseball game on Sunday." Don't rush. Most people talk fast when they are nervous or try to over summarize. Everyone has gathered at this moment, in part, to hear what you have to say. Take the time necessary to say what you need to say to tell the whole story in response to the questions you are asked without summarizing the facts. A little emotion can be appropriate in your tone, but stay civil and don't blow your top. As a rule of thumb the person who seems most reasonable usually wins. The judge can be referred to as "your honor". Lawyers can be referred to as "sir" or "ma'm". In content, you will be normally asked to provide your opinion on things like "is there any reason he would be a flight risk" (ideally answering with not just a "no" but a "he owns a home and has deep ties to the community and would never flee."), "is he a threat to the public?", "does he have a good reputation in the community?" ("Yes, I'd trust him with my money and my children."). Don't make things up, but focus on facts that reasonably demonstrate that he is unlikely to flee because he has too much to lose, firm ties, and no place to go.
Now the party in question is threatening to sue (but of course refuses to point to which sections he believes are libelous) ... do we have to pay the $$ to &quot;lawyer up&quot; if we want to be safe? If you get sued, you will definitely want a lawyer. If you don't get sued, well, in that case you're safe. So your first question is whether the supposedly aggrieved party will actually sue. Your second question is, if they sue, do they have a good case? That question will be useful in deciding whether to settle. If the threats are empty then you might want to hire a lawyer to call their bluff. Otherwise you may have to endure the continual empty threats. This is especially true if the libel case is weak. Your lawyer can write a letter that explains why there is no case. If they do sue, they will have to identify the specific libelous statements, so you will at that point be able to refute the claims. But you'll also want a lawyer at that point, so you won't have to be directly concerned with the details; your lawyer will take care of them. As suggested in a comment, do keep in mind that a true statement cannot be libelous, by definition. To the extent that you can prove that every statement in the piece is true then you don't have much to worry about. But even then you'll want a lawyer's advice, because even if you know yourself that everything is true, you don't know what it will take to prove that in court. (Another aspect of the element of falsity is that statements of opinion are generally not defamatory.) To learn for yourself about the elements of libel you can start with Wikipedia or a bit of internet searching. To get a thorough analysis of the facts of your case in light of the laws of the relevant jurisdictions, you will need to engage a lawyer. It might not cost as much as you fear.