I've Got Nothing.
Hi folks!
I don't know about you, but I'm a bit bored today.
Sure I could point out Vanessa Blum's well-written profile of Steve Zack.
BTW, did you know Steve does a Claude Pepper impression?
Hmm, maybe I should say, is there anyone out there who doesn't know Steve does a Claude Pepper impression?
Oh hail, perhaps the right question is -- does anyone even know who Claude Pepper is?
Like Steve, I do a killer George Raft impression, but for some reason the youngsters at the Bar functions just don't get into it like they used to.
Hey, did you know Representative Boehner's plan for transforming health care in America entails....reigning in junk lawsuits?
Oy veh.
For you helpless romantics (semantics?), a friend asks to break down Iqbal again:
The Iqbal court quoted the language from Twombly, that plaintiffs must "nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." I am moved to say that the court's pleading standard has gone from ridiculous to preposterous.
Of course, there is no practical difference between "conceivable" and "plausible," just as there is no real difference between "ridiculous" and "preposterous."
It only took me two minutes to find an opinion where the Court used "conceivable" and "plausible" interchangeably.
Not too long ago there was a case where the Supremes reversed a DC Circuit decision that Congress had violated equal protection with respect to a portion of the Cable Act. Here is F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307, 313-14 (1993):
In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. See Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 485 (1990); Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 600-603 (1987); United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174-179 (1980); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 484-485 (1970). Where there are "plausible reasons" for Congress' action, "our inquiry is at an end." United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, supra, at 179.
And then there’s the concurrence:
I continue to believe that, when Congress imposes a burden on one group, but leaves unaffected another that is similarly, though not identically, situated, "the Constitution requires something more than merely a `conceivable' or `plausible' explanation for the unequal treatment." United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 180 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment).
Is there any reason why “conceivable” and “plausible” are synonyms with respect to the rational basis test but not with respect to the pleading standard?
To sum it up, kids, is the Court’s wordplay laughable or risible?Or as George Raft used to say, "part of it went on gambling, and part of it went on women. The rest I spent foolishly."
This entry was posted on at 5:57 AM and is filed under Iqbal, Stephen N. Zack, Vanessa Blum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on...
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
Medical marijuana legal in some states, is creating some employment law problems . Seems employees with prescriptions for medicinal use of ...
-
Today marks day 100 of the Mott's strike . The pro-union writer, Michael Winship, does a pretty good job of outlining the economics of ...
-
This business owner's letter to the editor makes a strong case for preservation of the secret ballot for determining a union's maj...
-
Here is another example (the leather goods industry) of the absolute collapse of domestic manufacturing causing the elimination of high pa...
-
Responding to a request from Congressman Darrell Issa (R. CA), David Berry, the Inspector General for the NLRB has determined Craig Becke...
-
Attorney Kelsey will be appearing on Money Matters with Scottie McCall on Friday, April 30, 2010 at 3:30 P.M. Attorney Kelsey will discuss...