How to Choose the Next Federal Circuit Judge: Stick with Experience

“Patent law was a mess when the court was legislated into existence four decades ago….Have we now come full circle?”

https://depositphotos.com/7653754/stock-photo-right-vs-wrong-choice-arrow.htmlThe Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation’s patent court, is at a crossroad. Today, unlike in earlier decades, nearly all its cases are patent-related, yet, to my eye, barely half its members can be considered lifetime patent lawyers. And although any diligent lawyer can learn “black letter” patent law on the job (as I myself did), that is no longer sufficient, because judges also need a deep understanding of how inventors and investors, including corporate CEOs, rely on patents in making difficult and fateful decisions about whether to fund new R&D and manufacture new products, or not. Such decision-makers crave predictability of outcome and stability of legal requirements. Because uncertainty generates excess risk, when in doubt, they usually opt against going forward.

The Court is Productive, but Increasingly Paralyzed

Therefore, recent trends in case law are worrisome as impeding progress “in science and the useful arts.” Why? Because predictability and stability have been systematically downgraded. Instead, the court seems determined to keep evolving legal frontiers in pursuit of a more perfect patent system than contained in the Patent Act and settled precedent, each following personalized assumptions of optimal patent policy. Consequently, results often seem a function of the composition of the randomly-drawn panel, a fact unknowable when critical decisions are made years before any appeal. Moreover, the court seems consistently unwilling to go en banc to resolve numerous and disturbing conflicts and thus speak clearly, with one voice. It has been years since the last re-hearing by the full court in a major patent case. Many votes whether to go en banc are close, sometimes 6-6. Such paralysis is unhelpful, to say the least.

But in creating the court in 1982, Congress was explicit that the court’s mission was to clarify and unify patent law, increasing predictability and reliability. And strengthen its power to drive technology advances, which for decades the court did—until recent years.

Everyone can agree that all the present judges are extremely intelligent, learned and industrious. In fact, it is most impressive how the same staffing of 12 active judges the court was accorded at its creation have shouldered the flood of appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), on top of the continuing river from the district courts and the international Trade Commission. And the cases are more complex than ever, not only technologically but economically.

But productivity is not the only measure of success. Coherent patent doctrine is just as important. So are stability of rules and predictability of results. There, the court has been less successful. Consider the confusion surrounding such basic and common patent issues as the bounds of eligibility, availability of injunctions after judgement of infringement, nexus requirements for damages and injunctions, proper claim construction methods, obviousness analysis, especially regarding Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness and, again, nexus requirements, all of which seem to shift constantly.

Full Circle

Patent law was a mess when the court was legislated into existence four decades ago. Its first chief judge had a “Phoenix List” of major problem areas, which the court resolved in its first decade and beyond. Have we now come full circle with patent law’s lines being badly blurred? Even worse, continually shifting and difficult for examiners and judges to apply consistently.

Patents that were valid when issued are often later invalidated under subsequent case law developments. So, the patentee is effectively punished—divested of its personal property right (see 35 U.S.C. § 261)—for having failed to predict later extensions of the precedents as much as a decade earlier. Section 101’s and 112’s growing requirements are just two examples.

Chief Judge Markey often opined in early years that the court’s complement of patent lawyers should reflect the proportion of its patent cases. In early decades, patent cases made up about a third of the docket, so, logically, it should have had about four lifetime patent lawyers, which it did. Now, over three-quarters of its docket consists of patent-related appeals, but only half of the 12 active judges were, pre-appointment, patent lawyers by any definition. Even then, none had extensive personal experience both trying patent cases and prosecuting appeals.

Choose Wisely

To me, this all suggests that the nominee to fill the vacancy on the CAFC expected in May should be a seasoned patent litigator. And ideally one who has represented both patent owners and accused infringers. And preferably one with exposure to the PTAB as well as trial and appellate courts. But most importantly, a patent lawyer who believes in patents! Such a litigator should be able to resist the gravitational pull of ever-expanding extensions of Supreme Court decisions such as Mayo/Alice, e-Bay, KSR, Lexmark, Helsinn, etc.

Of course, experience as a district judge active with patent cases is roughly equivalent. Experience in industry can also inform deep understanding how the patent system applies in practice, including in deals, licensing and portfolio building. Academics and Capitol Hill policy lawyers seem less informed on such matters and hence less appropriate.

Because so much patent litigation today is global, reflecting global commerce, international experience, including with licensing and Standard Essential Patents and FRAND disputes and foreign courts and patent laws, would be very useful.

Finally, the lawyer selected must not only believe in the utility of patents as drivers of progress, but also in the mission of the court itself. So, service as a law clerk, although not a requirement, is also desirable.

Under all these criteria, the Administration, fortunately, will have many suitable candidates from which to choose. Let’s hope the criteria are kept in mind.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID:7653754
Copyright:iqoncept 

The Author

Judge Paul Michel (Ret.)

Judge Paul Michel (Ret.) became a private citizen on June 1, 2010 for the first time since he graduated from law school at the University of Virginia in 1966. Upon graduating from law school he became an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia, thus embarking upon the career of a public servant from 1966 to his retirement from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2010. Michel served on the Federal Circuit, which is the main patent appeals court in the United States, from 1988 to 2010, serving as Chief Judge from 2004 to 2010.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 93 Comments comments.

  1. MaxDrei March 21, 2021 3:16 pm

    I hasten to support this plea, based on my experience of patent litigation in England, where the patents judges are drawn from the ranks of trial lawyers (barristers) specialising in patent cases.

    That means that by the time they rise to the bench, they have had one or more decades of experience of representing, alternately, patent owners and patent infringers, so that they have imbibed deeply all the business concerns of both groups.

    And, like all judges in England, they are controlled by the Rules of Civil Procedure which impose on them its “over-riding objective” which is to “deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost”. Less than a third of trialled patent cases in England ever goes to appeal. That’s because in the great majority of cases, it would be futile.

  2. Night Writer March 21, 2021 5:05 pm

    Silicon Valley is going to select the next judge and tell their boy Biden to nominate him/her.

    My guess is that it is going to be Chien who as already said that what she thinks is important are trade secrets.

    And what you are missing is the tech workers. Trade secrets lock tech workers into jobs and reduce their salaries. SV companies have admitted before to collusion in lowering the salaries of tech workers and they could not want anything more than stronger Trade Secret law.

    The odds of getting a real judge from Biden are close to zero.

  3. Curious March 22, 2021 8:38 am

    Because predictability and stability have been systematically downgraded. Instead, the court seems determined to keep evolving legal frontiers in pursuit of a more perfect patent system than contained in the Patent Act and settled precedent
    Promotion of the useful arts requires predictability and stability. In business, value is ALWAYS discounted (reduced) for risk. The more risk, the less value. If you have a patent-based business and you are trying to attract investors, if the investors perceive a greater risk in your ability to enforce those patents, they will be LESS LIKELY to invest in your business. This means new technologies will be less likely to go to market and new jobs are less likely to be created.

    each following personalized assumptions of optimal patent policy.
    Policy making isn’t their job. However, it is plain as day that both the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit engage in it. It is the job of Congress to set patent policy — not unelected judges.

    In fact, it is most impressive how the same staffing of 12 active judges the court was accorded at its creation have shouldered the flood of appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), on top of the continuing river from the district courts and the international Trade Commission. And the cases are more complex than ever, not only technologically but economically.
    Judge Michel is being too kind. It is also plain as day to see how the Federal Circuit is managing its workload. They don’t engage in the hard part (i.e., the crafting of an opinion) in many instances. Rather, they simply dispose of a great number of cases with one-sentence Rule 36 affirmances. There is a threshold to a human’s capability to do more (i.e., with “the same staffing of 12 active judges”) and when threshold is met (and likely well before then), it is human nature to cut corners. The Federal Circuit should be split (and expanded) so that patent cases are handled by technologically capable judges and the mish-mash of cases reviewed by the Federal Circuit can be handled by another set of judges.

    To me, this all suggests that the nominee to fill the vacancy on the CAFC expected in May should be a seasoned patent litigator.
    I agree with everything said after and including this. Most importantly, I also agree with this:
    But most importantly, a patent lawyer who believes in patents!

    As I have written elsewhere, I believe whoever gets nominated will give us (in the patent community) a fair idea as to where the Biden administration plans to take patent law. To be clear, I don’t not believe that the direction of patent law will be decided by President Biden, but rather, it will be decided somewhere else and that will portend who (among the various patent-related constituencies) has influence in his administration.

  4. B March 22, 2021 12:43 pm

    @Night Writer “The odds of getting a real judge from Biden are close to zero”

    Well, as soon as the Biden administration masters the little things, e.g., the southern border of the U.S. and stairs, we’ll get a better look. Until then, only the people in the right drum circles will know for sure.

  5. Keep Looking March 22, 2021 2:46 pm

    The last president nominated people for the federal courts of appeal who were in their 30s and 40s. Therefore, I think this president will probably skew younger too for COA nominees — probably in the 40s and 50s, but no older than 55 (for truly exceptional and prolific candidates).

    In addition, if the president is trying to find nominees without predominantly biglaw or corporate experience, that’s going to be hard in the IP field. It is what it is.

    Anyway, there are quite a few African-American attorneys who are in their 40s and very early 50s would be more than qualified to be a judge on the Federal Circuit, if they wanted to serve: Ellisen Turner, Tara Elliott, George Jordan, Jeanne M. Gills, Judge Trevor Jefferson, Mareesa Frederick, and Brent Hawkins. There are even more African-American attorneys with broader patent and trademark experience.

  6. ipguy March 22, 2021 3:39 pm

    Judge Lucy Koh of the ND of California would be ideal.

  7. B March 22, 2021 8:27 pm

    @ ipguy “Judge Lucy Koh of the ND of California would be ideal.”

    Ideal? Judges like Koh are the problem. She can’t read and follow a single statute.

  8. Jonathan Stroud March 23, 2021 10:16 am

    I like the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee for this. What better experience than being a judge to be a judge?

    It is also high time there was an African American judge, and there are a wealth of super qualified candidates.

  9. B March 23, 2021 4:29 pm

    “It is also high time there was an African American judge, and there are a wealth of super qualified candidates.”

    So if there were two judges of equal competence and judicial temperament with one judge being Black and the other judge being trans, who should get the CAFC job?

  10. Anon March 23, 2021 9:15 pm

    Hush B, how dare you try to insert the “I’m more the victim” card here.

    Don’t you know that you are interrupting the perfectly good virtue signaling?

    /s

  11. B March 23, 2021 9:42 pm

    @ Anon “Don’t you know that you are interrupting the perfectly good virtue signaling?”

    I considered the possibility

    I guess I just miss the idea of meritocracy.

    Call me provincial

  12. AAA JJ March 24, 2021 3:26 pm

    “I guess I just miss the idea of meritocracy.”

    Because this country has always been a meritocracy for African Americans.

  13. B March 24, 2021 4:50 pm

    @AAA JJ “Because this country has always been a meritocracy for African Americans.”

    Respectfully, I can only speak of the last 50 years, but I was hoping we could keep bigotry in the past rather than to revive it in the name of “equity.”

    That said, suppose your child needed an emergency brain operation that required extraordinary skill and competence. Who do you want to do the operation? The most skilled doctor available or someone observably less skilled but who has a lot more social justice points and maybe passed the social purity test du jour?

    Asking for Ben Carson.

    Feel free to disagree but the only way to end race-based bigotry is to end race-based bigotry.

  14. AAA JJ March 24, 2021 5:19 pm

    Nobody is “reviving bigotry.” I can’t really help you if you think affirmative action is “the same evil” as slavery and Jim Crow (i.e. American apartheid) as some think. 246 years of slavery and 90+ years of Jim Crow had devastating affects on this country’s African American population. Those effects persist. They don’t disappear, or get cured, by waving a magic wand 50 years ago and saying “the only way to end race-based bigotry is to end race-based bigotry.” It’s like running a 100 yard dash, giving yourself a 95 yard head start, and saying “Gee, why can’t they just catch up?” If you really can’t understand why they can’t “just catch up” then you’re part of the problem.

    So no, affirmative action is not “race-based bigotry.” It’s a recognition that people from groups that were, by law, systematically excluded from the full benefits of citizenship deserve recompense.

  15. Anon March 24, 2021 5:57 pm

    Sorry B, AAA JJ loses any ability to reason when one of the Liberal Left mouthing points comes up.

    Somehow he NEEDS to have the evil of Racism “be exactly like” past evil of Racism to accept the fact that one cannot defeat evil with MORE of that evil.

    He simply will refuse to understand reason on this point.

  16. B March 24, 2021 6:37 pm

    @ AAA JJ “Nobody is “reviving bigotry.” I can’t really help you if you think affirmative action is “the same evil” as slavery and Jim Crow”

    Respectfully, I believe that you conflate affirmative action with what is going on now, and the comparison to slavery and Jim Crow (which I never made) is vastly disingenuous. I was fully on-board with affirmative action BTW until the definition changed from addressing past wrongs to attempting to secure equal outcomes. I am a true liberal: state-sanctioned bigotry is evil.

    That said, no one alive today was a slave; no one alive today was a slaveholder. Jim Crow ended long ago, and the only people demanding separate dorms, separate drinking fountains, and racial discrimination are the woke. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)

    Now answer the question re brain surgery. Competence or social justice?

    @ anon “Sorry B, AAA JJ loses any ability to reason when one of the Liberal Left mouthing points comes up.”

    Yeah, but racism is still racism, and AAA JJ won’t answer the competence or social justice question.

  17. RTFMPEP March 24, 2021 6:54 pm

    Judge Koh would be a great choice.

  18. AAA JJ March 25, 2021 9:05 am

    “Now answer the question re brain surgery. Competence or social justice?”

    You really think this gotcha question is so clever, don’t you. Nobody is suggesting that people who aren’t competent to perform brain surgery be licensed to perform brain surgery just because they are from a minority group, or in some effort to attain “social justice” or “equity.” Nobody is suggesting that. But keep telling yourself how clever you are for asking a question that nobody else is asking.

    “Jim Crow ended long ago…”

    It did, huh? Maybe you should take a look at some of the bills the Georgia legislature is considering to their voting laws.

  19. B March 25, 2021 9:22 am

    @ AAA JJ “You really think this gotcha question is so clever, don’t you.

    I see that, despite your posturing, you refuse to answer the question.

    “Nobody is suggesting that people who aren’t competent to perform brain surgery be licensed to perform brain surgery just because they are from a minority group, or in some effort to attain “social justice” or “equity.””

    As an initial issue – learn who Ben Carson is. That said, if you choose to promote someone into a position based on race and not merit, then you definitely risk promoting incompetence.

    “Nobody is suggesting that.”

    The entire world suggest that. You are suggesting that by advancing racist criteria over competence.

    “But keep telling yourself how clever you are for asking a question that nobody else is asking.”

    Half the world is asking that question, or one similar to it.

  20. B March 25, 2021 9:41 am

    @ AAA JJ By the way, from Gallup

    “Americans continue to believe colleges should admit applicants based solely on merit (70%), rather than taking into account applicants’ race and ethnicity in order to promote diversity (26%) . . . and 9% saying that [race or ethnicity] should be a “major factor.”

    Point No. 1: I’m not alone
    Point No. 2: Your position appears to be the minority / fringe position

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/193508/oppose-colleges-considering-race-admissions.aspx

  21. B March 25, 2021 9:49 am

    @ AAA JJ “It did, huh? Maybe you should take a look at some of the bills the Georgia legislature is considering to their voting laws.”

    Please enlighten me. What EXACTLY is the Georgia legislature considering re voting that is so “Jim Crow?”

    Poll taxes?
    Separate voting facilities?
    Literacy requirements?

  22. Anon March 26, 2021 9:19 am

    Perhaps AAA JJ needs a reminder of the actual history of Jim Crow laws and the use of filibuster by those with the “D” label.

  23. Night Writer March 26, 2021 10:15 am

    I listened to some academic lectures about the “woke”.

    I think the best explanation I heard is that they are neo-Marxists but they are using race instead of class to group people. Scary.

  24. AAA JJ March 26, 2021 10:44 am

    “The entire world suggest that.”

    Really? Do you have a link to another 5 year old poll about a Supreme Court decision that none of the people polled have actually read that “proves” that?

    I know who Ben Carson is. I find it amusing you use him as your example. Because Ben Carson being a brain surgeon “proves” (at least to you) that there’s no more racism.

    You can read Mr. Elias’s complaint against SB202 here. (Though I’m sure you won’t. Because in your reality “Jim Crow is long dead and gone.”)

    https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/georgia-voter-suppression-bill/

    “Perhaps AAA JJ needs a reminder of the actual history of Jim Crow laws and the use of filibuster by those with the “D” label.”

    I don’t need a reminder. I would be fascinated to hear why you think 1960’s era Democrats filibustering civil rights legislation has any relevance to the positions of the 2020’s Democratic party position on civil and voting rights legislation. What exactly is the relevance?

  25. Anon March 26, 2021 11:37 am

    Night Writer,

    The political philosophy is called Neo-Liberalism.

    The advent of this was the realization that Socialism and Communism as applied in the real world were abject failures.

    It has devolved into a very scary pure power grab with all reason and rationale that does not suit the purpose of the Neo-Liberalist simply dismissed.

    Identity Politics is indeed a prime lever.

    Sadly, many of the Liberal Left are simply not as aware of the drivers behind their own “Beliebs.” I know many that believe in justice and want justice socially, that have fallen into a mindless Social Justice Warrior mode. It is NOT that these people are “bad people” per se, or even want “bad things.” It is that they are Sheeple and do not (and often cannot) apply critical thinking. And some of these people lacking this ability are otherwise VERY intelligent. But when it comes to a ‘hot button’ item, literally, all reason disappears.

  26. B March 26, 2021 6:37 pm

    @ Anon “The political philosophy is called Neo-Liberalism.”

    IMHO the better term is “post-modernism.” Basically Marxism became so unpopular (due to the piles and piles and piles of dead bodies) that the pseudo-intellectual parasites who contribute nothing (but who still desire power or praise) needed new labels.

    “Neoliberalism” is a bastardization of the meaning of the word as originally invented in the 19th century, and doesn’t explain the push to change language, deny reality, and identity politics.

    For example, using the term “equity” in place of “blatantly racist” while asserting moral superiority is a classical post-modernist (and post-structuralist) tactic

    Camille Paglia has some great writings on the issue.

  27. B March 26, 2021 7:17 pm

    @ AAA JJ ” Do you have a link to another 5 year old poll blah blah blah”

    How many polls do I need?

    As to whatever garbage Elias spews, where is his evidence? Filing a lawsuit proves nothing, and indeed had you actually read the Complaint that you link to, you’d know that Elias et al. cite no evidence — just a bunch of assertions coupled with some real bad things that happened in Georgia 60+ years ago when the state was run by Democrats, e.g., the poll tax.

    What I find interesting is that the Complaint labels the bill at issue as “The Voter Suppression Bill.” Classic post-modernist / post-structuralist garbage.

    Anyway, you lack the capacity to answer any honest question put forth to you. I asked “What EXACTLY is the Georgia legislature considering re voting that is so ‘Jim Crow?’” You can’t answer that, or you would have already done so.

    BTW, I not only read the Complaint (you obviously didn’t though), I actually read the text of SB-202. Had you done this, you’d know what total garbage Elias’ Complaint is. Given SB-202 is a whopping two pages long, you should be able to read it in a timely fashion and explain where Elias gleaned the assertions in his Complaint. https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/198006

    Were I opposing this Complaint, I’d enter the text of SB-202 into evidence under FRE 201(b)(2), and file a MOD plus sanctions for violating FRCP 11(b)(4).

  28. B March 26, 2021 7:24 pm

    @ AAA JJ “I would be fascinated to hear why you think 1960’s era Democrats filibustering civil rights legislation has any relevance to the positions of the 2020’s Democratic party position on civil and voting rights legislation. What exactly is the relevance?”

    The better question: What is the relevance to Democrats filibustering civil rights legislation in the 1960s to the Republican push for SB-202 in 2021?

    Take your time.

    SB-202 is only two pages long.

    My prediction: this will be the THIRD question you refuse to answer.

  29. B March 26, 2021 7:45 pm

    @ AAA JJ “I know who Ben Carson is. I find it amusing you use him as your example. Because Ben Carson being a brain surgeon “proves” (at least to you) that there’s no more racism.”

    I never said racism doesn’t exist.

    In fact, racism is alive and well in every individual who insists on using skin color as a metric for giving one person a job over another in the name of “equity.”‘

    I used Ben Carson as an example, because Carson condemns this “equity” nonsense.

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/295700

  30. Anon March 29, 2021 8:54 am

    Thanks B for the source. Ms Paglia certainly has an interesting perspective, and some of her video coverage (dialogues with Prof. Peterson, for example) provide room for both of our viewpoints.

    I wonder whom AAA JJ would point to, to support his world view?

    I wonder if he would be confident enough to engage in any meaningful way on that matter?

    I think that you, I, even AAA JJ (and certainly the readers) already know the answers to those questions.

  31. AAA JJ March 29, 2021 11:18 am

    “SB-202 is only two pages long.”

    They replaced it with a 90+ page version a couple of hours before the vote. Guess you missed that.

    “As to whatever garbage Elias spews,…”

    Mr. Elias’s W-L record speaks for itself.

    “How many polls do I need?”

    You claim that somebody is advocating that unqualified people be licensed to practice brain surgery based on “social justice points” or a “social purity test” and you cite as evidence some 5 year old poll on Fisher v. U of Texas, a case that deals with college admission factors. Pretty weak stuff.

    I hope you do a better job when citing evidence on behalf of your clients. But based on your performance in the case against Mr. Goldberg, I doubt it. Then again, you know what they say about an attorney who represents himself.

  32. B March 29, 2021 2:35 pm

    @ AAAJJ “ They replaced it with a 90+ page version a couple of hours before the vote. Guess you missed that.”

    Great. Then show me the Jim Crow legislation that has you all upset. Be specific.

  33. AAA JJ March 29, 2021 4:22 pm

    SB 202 1) requires an ID number to apply for an absentee ballot (200k Georgians are estimated to not have the required ID),
    2) cuts off absentee ballot applications 11 days before an election, 3) limits the number of absentee ballot drop boxes, 4)
    makes it a misdemeanor to hand out food or water to voters in line, 5) allows the State Election Board to take over county election boards that it deems need intervention (skeptics say that will allow Republican officials to decide which ballots count in majority Democratic areas, such as Fulton County), 6) limits ballot drop boxes to only allowed inside early voting locations and available strictly during business hours, 7) reduces early voting for runoffs will be reduced to a minimum of one week because runoffs will occur four weeks after general elections instead of eight.

    Mr. Elias’s complaint does a good job of summarizing the burdens on voting that SB 202 presents, and why Georgia’s history of suppressing Black voters makes the law problematic.

    Here is some further context:

    https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl

    What do you think happened in the 2020 election that made the Republican majority in the Georgia legislature think it needed a 96 page bill to address “election integrity”? Both the Republican governor and secretary of state claimed there was no election fraud. So why the 96 page bill?

    “Were I opposing this Complaint, I’d enter the text of SB-202 into evidence under FRE 201(b)(2), and file a MOD plus sanctions for violating FRCP 11(b)(4).”

    Maybe you can represent yourself again. It worked out so well for you the first time.

    LOL

  34. B March 29, 2021 5:33 pm

    @ AAA JJ “SB 202 1) requires an ID number to apply for an absentee ballot (200k Georgians are estimated to not have the required ID)”

    You know who else requires an ID to vote?

    California and New Jersey

    Guess it’s 1000000% okay when Democrats do it. When Republicans do it it’s Jim Crow

    “2) cuts off absentee ballot applications 11 days before an election,”

    And this is just like Jim Crow . . . why?

    “3) limits the number of absentee ballot drop boxes”

    And this is just like Jim Crow . . . why?

    “makes it a misdemeanor to hand out food or water to voters in line,”

    And this is just like Jim Crow . . . why?

    “allows the State Election Board to take over county election boards that it deems need intervention (skeptics say that will allow Republican officials to decide which ballots count in majority Democratic areas, such as Fulton County”

    “Skeptics?” Who are these “skeptics?” and what is their evidence?

    BTW, you realize that this is a provision to prevent voter fraud by partisans, and applies to people of all color right?

    “limits ballot drop boxes to only allowed inside early voting locations and available strictly during business hours,”

    That’s called “security,” but more importantly how does it resemble Jim Crow?

    “reduces early voting for runoffs will be reduced to a minimum of one week because runoffs will occur four weeks after general elections instead of eight.”

    OMGOMGOMG so what? Jim Crow? You’re nuts.

    Thanks AAA JJ for being specific. You’ve proved yourself what I thought: incapable of critical thinking

  35. B March 29, 2021 5:45 pm

    “What do you think happened in the 2020 election that made the Republican majority in the Georgia legislature think it needed a 96 page bill to address “election integrity”?”

    Actually, quite a bit, but regardless your points are meaningless. States have the right to regulate elections so long as such regulation is not facially discriminatory or have an effect of discrimination.

    That said and returning to the subject of this thread, I will support a color-blind selection for judges, and will not support any form of bigotry that gives preference to one judge over another based on skin color, sex, etc.

    I can’t believe that there are people who think this sort of bigotry is what this nation needs

  36. B March 29, 2021 6:40 pm

    @ AAA JJ “Mr. Elias’s W-L record speaks for itself.”

    Noooo, it doesn’t. You can’t even name a single thing about the bill that you disagree with

    “I hope you do a better job when citing evidence on behalf of your clients. . . . .”

    Dude, at least I cite evidence. All you do is complain based on nothing while demanding racist things to benefit racists.

    Sad really.

    @ Anon “I wonder whom AAA JJ would point to, to support his world view?”

    AAA JJ doesn’t have a world view. His opinions are fed to him, and he does not possess the capacity to think critically on the issues.

    @ Anon “Ms Paglia certainly has an interesting perspective, and some of her video coverage (dialogues with Prof. Peterson, for example) provide room for both of our viewpoints.”

    I once heard Paglia and Peterson have a discussion on post-modernism — made me think that I’d never really had an intellectual discussion in my life.

    FYI, I’m betting Peterson will eventually move to the U.S. b/c free thought unapproved by the dipsticks in Ottowa is now a crime.

  37. B March 30, 2021 12:38 am

    @ AAAJJ “SB 202 1) requires an ID number to apply for an absentee ballot”

    Just FYI

    “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote. Only 21% are opposed to such a requirement. (To see survey question wording. . . . . Majorities of whites (74%), blacks (69%) and other minorities (82%) say voters should be required to show photo identification before being allowed to vote.”

    So do 7 in 10 black people approve of Jim Crow, or is it a possibility that 7 in 10 black people think voter ID is a reasonable precaution against voter fraud?

    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/march_2021/75_support_voter_id_laws

  38. AAA JJ March 30, 2021 8:06 am

    “I once heard Paglia and Peterson have a discussion on post-modernism — made me think that I’d never really had an intellectual discussion in my life.”

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

  39. Curious March 30, 2021 10:33 am

    Anybody put there money on Tiffany Cunningham? Anybody have any interesting information?

  40. AAA JJ March 30, 2021 10:55 am

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/perkins-coie-partner-is-tapped-for-federal-circuit-appeals-seat

    Be prepared for a flood of tears from the “critical reasoning” types.

  41. B March 30, 2021 1:37 pm

    @ AAA JJ “LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL”

    So lame.

    “Be prepared for a flood of tears from the ‘critical reasoning’ types.”

    You really are running on low batteries.

    Cunningham’s CV looks impressive. I’d have picked her over Hughes, Reyna, Taranto, Prost, Dyk, Mayer, and Stoll any day of the week.

    I just hope she didn’t absorb Dyk’s anti-patent attitudes and vapid incompetence via proximity.

    That said, I will give an eye roll for the statement about “much-needed diversity.”

  42. ipguy March 30, 2021 9:00 pm

    @28

    “The better question: What is the relevance to Democrats filibustering civil rights legislation in the 1960s to the Republican push for SB-202 in 2021?”

    The even better question: What is the difference between Southern Conservatives filibustering civil rights legislation in the 1960s and Southern Conservatives pushing for SB-202 in 2021?

    Let us recall that Strom Thurmond, a Southern Conservative, ran for president in 1948 on a Dixiecrat platform opposing ”social intermingling of the races,” and switched from being a Democrat to a Republican due to Democratic support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A staunch opponent of Civil Rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s, Thurmond conducted the longest speaking filibuster ever by a lone senator, at 24 hours and 18 minutes in length, in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In the 1960s, he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On September 16, 1964, Thurmond confirmed he was leaving the Democratic Party, charging the Democrats with having “abandoned the people” and having repudiated the U.S. Constitution as well as providing leadership for the eventual takeover of the U.S. by socialistic dictatorship. Sound familiar?

    If you’ve been paying any attention during Election 2020, the January 6, 2021 Capitol Insurrection and up to and including today’s news cycle, the fear-mongering “socialist dictatorship” red herring is still being used to justify anti-civil rights legislation.

    You might recall that then-Senate Majority Leader (Republican) Trent Lott (Southern Conservative) once praised Thurmond by saying:
    ”I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president*, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”
    *as a segregationist and anti-civil rights crusader

    “all these problems over all these years”? Problems for conservatives like people of color being able to cast a ballot.

    So, can we get back to talking about IP?

  43. B March 31, 2021 1:11 am

    @ ipguy “If you’ve been paying any attention during Election 2020, the January 6, 2021 Capitol Insurrection and up to and including today’s news cycle, the fear-mongering “socialist dictatorship” red herring is still being used to justify anti-civil rights legislation.”

    What anti-civil rights legislation?

    The only anti-civil rights legislation I’m aware of (Prop 16) is going in in California, and was voted on long before 1/6/21. Fortunately, the bad guys lost by a wide margin. Opportunity officially remains merit based in California.

    https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)

  44. ipguy March 31, 2021 3:40 pm

    @43 “What anti-civil rights legislation?”

    Thank you for proving my point.

  45. B March 31, 2021 4:19 pm

    @ ipguy “Thank you for proving my point.”

    Your point being that you don’t have the slightest clue, or the fact that “anti civil rights” legislation means legislation certain politicians and talking head don’t like — as opposed to legislation that 75% of the nation approves of?

    When did “merit” become such a negative term in some circles?

  46. ipguy March 31, 2021 7:50 pm

    @45 “Your point being that you don’t have the slightest clue”

    Your ad hominem attacks and personal insults do little to advance your cause. You could not respond to facts so you resorted to emotional outburst. It’s an understandable response given your inability to rebut what I posted, but you’re just embarrassing yourself, and digging that hole you’re in even deeper.

    Comments like yours are part of the reason why so many online legal forums like the ABA Journal, and Above The Law discontinued the ability for users to post comments.

    Do yourself a favor and follow the spirit of 37 CFR § 1.3 by conducting your business on this forum with decorum and courtesy.

    Now please feel free to get in the last word. I know how important that is to you.

  47. B March 31, 2021 9:47 pm

    @ ipguy “Your ad hominem attacks and personal insults do little to advance your cause.”

    Seriously, dude, your comment “Thank you for proving my point” is beyond vacuous, it’s non-responsive, and intended as an insult. Pointing out that this statement is severely lacking in serious content is not an ad hominem attack.

    Further, pointing out that your position is out of sync with 3 in 4 Americans (and 70% of black Americans) is not an insult or an ad hominem attack. It may be argumentum ad populum, but argumentum ad hominem its not.

    Now, if you wish to cite what you believe is a single instance of anti-civil rights legislation, I’m more than willing to listen and RESPOND RESPECTFULLY ON THE MERITS. On the other hand, if you wish to continue with vacuous, non-responsive retorts, then my response is “thank you for proving my point.”

  48. Anon April 1, 2021 1:25 pm

    B,

    Touché.

  49. RTFMPEP April 1, 2021 2:54 pm

    B,

    Calm down. ipguy was right about you needing to get in the last word and your rage post only proved ipguy’s point.

  50. Anon April 1, 2021 4:12 pm

    RTFMPEP,

    Not so. Maybe you should not jump to emotion yourself but instead read the content of that last reply.

  51. RTFMPEP April 1, 2021 6:14 pm

    Anon,
    You should take your own advice. You and B are posting more from emotion than from reason.

  52. Anon April 1, 2021 8:31 pm

    RTFMPEP,

    Except not. Perhaps you need to learn to recognize legal content.

  53. RTFMPEP April 1, 2021 9:25 pm

    Anon is another one that needs to get in the last word.

  54. B April 1, 2021 10:10 pm

    @ RTFMPEP “ Anon is another one that needs to get in the last word”

    How dare someone respond to your silly insults.

  55. B April 1, 2021 11:13 pm

    @ RTFMPEP “Calm down. ipguy was right about you needing to get in the last word and your rage post only proved ipguy’s point.”

    Rage?

    I don’t feel rage, and my posts don’t reflect rage. However, if you disagree, please feel free to point out a post where I’m raging.

    I do feel utter befuddlement at the rage against the idea that people should be promoted based on merit, rather than the concept that race, skin-color should supersede merit.

  56. Anon April 2, 2021 10:48 am

    RTFMPEP,

    I can see why you only grasp the sense of “get in the last word,” – but if you were to apply any sense of critical thinking, you would see the WHY of a response is provided.

    It is simply NOT something as trivial as “last word.” It is quite clear that the person being responded to is still in error, and that another post is in order.

  57. B April 2, 2021 11:54 am

    @ ipguy “You might recall that then-Senate Majority Leader (Republican) Trent Lott (Southern Conservative) once praised Thurmond by saying: ”I want to say this about my state . . . ”

    I’ve never been a Strom Thurmond fan, but having grown up in Mississippi I am a fan of Trent Lott.

    I’m always surprised at how peoples’ heads explode at the thought of Lott praising Thurman on his 157th-ish birthday.

    That said, what the ignoranti don’t realize about Senator Lott is that he had an ongoing war against the KKK, who threatened the lives of Lott and his family. No – so easy to brand Lott as a racist because, you know, Mississippi.

    That said, I find it curious that you don’t bring up Senator Robert Byrd, founder of the KKK in WV and former Grand Cyclops of the WV KKK. Did you ever ask how many people of color were left hanging from trees b/c of Byrd, or does the fact that Trent Lott once publicly praised a fossil twenty years ago keep you outraged?

  58. RTFMPEP April 2, 2021 3:28 pm

    @57
    Took you two days to come up with that lame, disingenuous rant?

    “grown up in Mississippi”

    No surprise there. The degeneracy of southern conservatism permeates your ignorant diatribes. After all, MS didn’t prohibit first cousins from marrying until well into the 20th Century.

    Overall, your post was a pathetic and pathological attempt to avoid responding to the undeniable fact that southern conservatism is racism.

  59. B April 2, 2021 4:21 pm

    @ RTFMPEP “No surprise there. The degeneracy of southern conservatism permeates your ignorant diatribes.”

    I’ve certainly seen bigotry in Mississippi, but it was nothing like what I’ve seen north of the Mason-Dixon.

    MLK led marches in Montgomery, Birmingham and Selma decades upon decades ago. Today, all these protests against racism occur mostly in Northern cities and/or cities run by people who describe themselves as “liberals.” Remember the Freddie Grey riots in Baltimore in 2015? Last year there were race riots in LA, Chicago, Boston, Denver, Detroit, Minneapolis, and NYC. Far fewer in the South.

    The biggest complaint I hear from southerners these days? “All the %#$#@ northerners moving into the neighborhood” to escape the dystopian North. One of my dad’s new neighbors is a refugee from Baltimore. Really nice woman. She fled inner-city Baltimore for the South b/c she feared for the lives of her two boys, and now the biggest threat to her existence is the occasional drive-by waiving.

    “Overall, your post was a pathetic and pathological attempt to avoid responding to the undeniable fact that southern conservatism is racism.”

    Funny, I’m the one parroting Martin Luther King and advocating a color-blind society and against race-based promotion, yet people like you consider me the racist.

    My very smart, very much brown, non-Anglo-Saxon gf would call you “challenged.”

  60. RTFMPEP April 2, 2021 5:02 pm

    @57
    Also, if you expect ipguy to respond to your garbage, then “feel free to get in the last word’ is obviously beyond your reading comprehension abilities and limited mental abilities. .

    As for Byrd, he apologized numerous times over the years for that, but Thurmond never apologized for his. Even more, it was revealed after his death that while southern conservatism Thurmond was a segregation ist, it didn’t stop him having sex with an underage black girl and fathering an illegitimate baby with her, even as Thurmond supported anti-miscegination laws. Such is the hypocrisy of conservatives.

  61. B April 2, 2021 5:37 pm

    @ RTFMPEP “As for Byrd, he apologized numerous times over the years for that, but Thurmond never apologized for his.”

    As I said above, I’ve never been a Thurmond fan, and I need not defend him.

    However, in 2002 Trent Lott publicly apologized for complementing Thurmond in 2000, but apparently that isn’t sufficient in your eyes.

    That said, is a convenient public apology really sufficient for the hanging victims of the WV KKK that Byrd founded, or the crosses burned? Is it really enough for Byrd’s 1964 filibuster of the Civil Rights Act?

    “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” — Senator Robert Byrd

    Looks like you have a vastly different standard depending on whether a politician has an R or a D behind his name. “Such is the hypocrisy of” RTFMPEP.

  62. B April 2, 2021 6:13 pm

    @ RTFMPEP “MS didn’t prohibit first cousins from marrying until well into the 20th Century.”

    States where first cousins can legally marry TODAY include CA, CO, CT, HI, MA, ME, MD, NJ, NM, NY, RI, VA, VT, plus DC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States

    Apparently, the Magnolia State compares well.

    You really need to consider adopting more principled and less obnoxious arguments. You’re more interested in mud wrestling than discussing issues on the merits, and I am officially done with you.

    Best you run to your Twitter account.

  63. ipguy April 2, 2021 8:24 pm

    @ RTFMPEP

    “Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
    — Mark Twain

    You’ll get further arguing with the Black Knight from Monty Python.

  64. Anon April 3, 2021 12:40 pm

    I have heard only negative things about Judge Koh in relation to intellectual property matters.

    I am curious as to what specific strengths are seen in her by those that would put her forth as a good candidate.

  65. B April 3, 2021 7:18 pm

    @ ipguy “Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

    I’ve noticed your joy while slinging mud. I still suggest making substantive arguments (when you’re ready).

    @ Anon “I have heard only negative things about Judge Koh in relation to intellectual property matters.”

    As I mentioned earlier, she has a problem with statutes she doesn’t like. Koh is too pro-government, and has been overturned by the 9th Cir. and SCOTUS several times in the last year alone — including the Qualcomm / FTC case last August. Golly, contrary to the musings of Judge Koh, Qualcomm has no duty under anti-trust law to license rival chip suppliers. https://news.yahoo.com/us-court-overturns-qualcomm-defeat-193726427.html

    Koh is a walking judicial disaster made possible by people seeking diversity over competence.

  66. Anon April 4, 2021 7:08 am

    Thanks B.

    Maybe instead of empty rhetoric (and admonition about such, that appear to be completely empty themselves), we will see people being willing to be on target and on topic (including taking in and not outright dismissing political viewpoints on political things — that may run contrary to any desired narrative).

  67. B April 4, 2021 1:20 pm

    @ Anon “Maybe instead of empty rhetoric (and admonition about such, that appear to be completely empty themselves), we will see people being willing to be on target and on topic . . . . ”

    I so agree. Why a certain unnamed someone would have to comment on 20th century marriage laws in Mississippi in a lame ad hominem attack is beyond me.

    Why voter ID must be Jim Crow is beyond me.

    Why merit-based, color-blind promotion is Jim Crow is really beyond me.

    The closest thing to Jim Crow that I can think of in the last 30 years was a crime bill in the 1990s that disproportionately put black men in jail.

  68. RTFMPEP April 4, 2021 3:31 pm

    Keep throwing that conniption, b. Ipguy done whupped you good, boy. That’s why you’re still squealing.

  69. Anon April 4, 2021 6:41 pm

    RTFMPEP,

    Do you actually have ANY item that is on point to add?

    Here’s an idea for you: enjoy one item of your ad hominem when you actually state something substantive and on point.

    Heck, lead with that type of value, and then share two items of ad hominem.

    As it is, you have established ZERO credibility, and thus your mindless ad hominem carries NO impact.

    None at all.

  70. RTFMPEP April 4, 2021 10:56 pm

    Anon keeps responding to posts made to B. Anon lost track of which of his alter egos was being responded to.

  71. Anon April 5, 2021 6:27 am

    RTFMPEP,

    My post was to you and about you.

    Other posts aim to have a dialogue.

    B is not an alter ego of mine – that should be clear to you or to anyone that has been paying attention.

    Chalk up yet another empty and snarky post for you.

    But be warned, if you are going to only play games, you are going to find that the blog moderator here won’t allow that for too long.

    I suggest that you aim to contribute to the dialogues here.

  72. B April 5, 2021 1:14 pm

    @ Anon “But be warned, if you are going to only play games, you are going to find that the blog moderator here won’t allow that for too long.”

    Don’t feed the troll. Look above. Has RTFMPEP added a single meaningful sentence?

  73. Anon April 5, 2021 5:58 pm

    Thanks B – I considered my post less “feed the Tr011” and more of a fair warning that this poster appears to be new to this site and may be expecting a different moderation system that certain other blogs ’employ.’

    Yes, I have explicitly noticed your question of “Has RTFMPEP added a single meaningful sentence?” and we both know that the answer to that question is an emphatic ‘No.’

    But the person should be made aware that while that person may see others engage with a bit of snark, there is a certain leeway achieved when one routinely adds to substantive discussions. A bit of sharpness falls to my own predilections of John Maynard Keynes. I wouldn’t want our new poster to misconstrue “wild words” and at the same time pursue a type of Heckler’s Veto as if ALL “wild” or sharp words need be expunged. For if that were to come to be, and assaults on the unthinking would be replaced with sophist and cloying ‘politeness’ and the dialogue would just as assuredly suffer.

  74. RTFMPEP April 6, 2021 2:47 pm

    “Don’t feed the troll.’

    Pot calling kettle alert! Pot calling kettle alert!
    The circle of conservative hypocrisy is never ending.

  75. Anon April 6, 2021 3:39 pm

    Is B feeding Tr011s?

    Or is he having a conversation?

    Perhaps you are not capable of understanding the difference (which would explain the tendencies that you have shown here to date).

  76. Anon April 6, 2021 7:46 pm

    Further, you insert a “feeling” notion that does not fit here:

    conservative hypocrisy?

    Even if you arrive (somehow) that B has engaged in a “pot and kettle” situation vis a vis “feeding a tr011ing,” what pray tell constitutes “conservative” in any such feeding?

    Given that you have — to date — not supplied a single item of substance, and all that you have provided is insult, this type of “oops” on your part — inserting a label that just does not fit — is what is called a Tell.

  77. B April 7, 2021 8:42 am

    @ Anon “what pray tell constitutes “conservative” in any such feeding?”

    conservative = advocating merit over race-based criteria.

    MLK is apparently one of history’s greatest southern conservatives.

    These people are insane

  78. Anon April 7, 2021 4:54 pm

    Thanks B – I did see that as “conservative,” but just could not make the leap to seeing that as hypocrisy.

    The only hypocrisy I have seen on that front is the view of fully buying into racism to somehow combat racism.

  79. B April 8, 2021 2:04 am

    @ Anon “The only hypocrisy I have seen on that front is the view of fully buying into racism to somehow combat racism.”

    They don’t even see it, and are intellectually unable to do anything but scream “racism” when the proclamations of the favorite politicians are challenged. In the end, they don’t defend their positions but instead devolve into things like screaming about Mississippi supposedly being inbred.

    By the way, you want to see a list of 113 countries that demand voter ID (including Canada, Mexico, and most of Central/South America)? https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/countries-that-require-an-id-to-vote/

    Hey, who knew Denmark was such a bastion for Jim Crow?

    ipguy and AA JJ, feel free to respond so long as you can avoid personal attacks and stick to the issue. Explain to the readers why you believe black people are too stupid to get an ID.

  80. RTFMPEP April 8, 2021 11:37 am

    @79
    Have some cheese with your whine.
    Your gaslighting posts are permeated with your impotent rage at how ipguy done whupped you good, boy.

  81. AAA JJ April 8, 2021 12:13 pm

    One of the self-styled purveyors of “intellectually honest” debating poses the following:

    “Explain to the readers why you believe black people are too stupid to get an ID.”

    What next, are you going to ask me if I’ve stopped beating my wife?

    Nobody is opposing voter ID requirements because they believe Black people are too stupid to get an ID. If you have any evidence of anybody opposing voter ID requirements on that premise or belief, please cite it.

    So you set up a question with a completely false premise (that I or anybody else believes voter ID requirements are bad because Black people are too stupid to get one) and then bray like a jackass that I won’t “intellectually engage” when I won’t answer your completely inane question.

    You really think you’re clever don’t you? I realize that nonsense like this probably wins you a lot of “debates” in the Ben Shapirosphere that you wallow in all day, but I’ll pass.

    Why don’t actually take the time to read some of the thoughtful critiques of SB202 and some of the other “voter integrity” bills that are pending and ask me my opinion of those critiques? Because it’s actually you that’s too lazy to do any work on the issues. You’d rather cite me Newsmax headlines. (BTW, still waiting for you to explain why the ABA nominee screening process used by 9 White presidents suddenly becomes the “most incredible and unprecedented lack of transparency” (an exact quote BTW) when the Black president uses it.)

    You’re a joke. It’s no wonder you failed miserably in the Villena case. I pity your clients that got billed to pursue that DOA appeal.

  82. AAA JJ April 8, 2021 12:19 pm

    “Hey, who knew Denmark was such a bastion for Jim Crow?”

    For somebody who is a lawyer and supposed to be able to argue by analogy, you’re really terrible at it.

    If you can’t understand why a voter ID requirement in Denmark wouldn’t raise any concerns of racist intent and/or effect, it’s because Denmark doesn’t have a history of enslaving a portion of its population for 246 years and then using laws to effectively disenfranchise that population for another 100 years after.

    That you think “Hey, who knew Denmark was such a bastion for Jim Crow?” is a persuasive argument just demonstrates how terrible your arguments are.

  83. Anon April 8, 2021 12:25 pm

    RTFMPEP,

    Your mindlessness is only matched by your ability to throw shade that rightfully describes your actions.

    Your stay on this site is likely to be brief.

  84. Anon April 8, 2021 12:36 pm

    Nobody is opposing voter ID requirements because they believe Black people are too stupid to get an ID. If you have any evidence of anybody opposing voter ID requirements on that premise or belief, please cite it.

    No where is that Biden link…..

    But let’s look at this a bit more closely shall we?

    You assert that the question is based on a false premise.

    Methinks that you mistake the barb as a premise. The premise is very much NOT false, and in fact points out the hypocrisy of the Liberal Left ranting about how wanting an ID to be some great racist thing or making voting ‘so hard.’

    Instead of answering questions put to you (that’s not the only one), you instead seek to play the “umbrage” card, or worse yet, play the mindless insult game.

    Why don’t you instead put that energy into actually thinking about the foundations of your “Beliebs” and recognize that one cannot fight racism with racism.

    It is as simple as that: the answer cannot be more of the same, but just switch the positions of the players.

    As to “Ben Shapirosphere,” it is unfortunate that the focus is so often on him engaging college students, as those really are unfair confrontations, with college students being Sheeple, and — like you — lacking a true understanding of the foundations of the philosophies at point. While you ‘diss’ that, I am sure that you cannot see the irony of how you fit into that “Shapirosphere” on the losing end of the exchange.

  85. RTFMPEP April 8, 2021 8:10 pm

    B/Anon trying to create the appearance of concensus and failing. Bless their hearts for trying.

  86. RTFMPEP April 8, 2021 9:17 pm

    White supremacists are the root of all race-related violence in the US, and white supremacists are conservatives. Conservatism truly is a mental disease

  87. B April 8, 2021 9:39 pm

    @ RTFMPEP “Have some cheese with your whine.”

    Somewhere there’s a padded cell missing your presence

  88. B April 8, 2021 10:11 pm

    @ AAA JJ “Nobody is opposing voter ID requirements because they believe Black people are too stupid to get an ID.”

    Fine, then why do you assert voter ID is racist?

    “it’s because Denmark doesn’t have a history of enslaving a portion of its population for 246 years”

    Denmark has over 600 years of history of raiding neighboring lands for slaves and plunder, and were active in the European slave trade for sever hundred years. “Thrall” is the Danish word for slave. Also, the Danish West Indies was an active center of the slave trade until they had their a$$es handed to them in the mid-1800s by their slaves.

    In contrast, the GOP was founded to do away with slavery, and fought Democrats for decades on Jim Crow.

    History. Learn some.

    BTW, you STILL haven’t answered why voter ID is racist.

    “I realize that nonsense like this probably wins you a lot of “debates” in the Ben Shapirosphere that you wallow in all day, but I’ll pass.”

    Why a 5’6″, 140lb Jewish man so threatens the Left (bigotry perhaps?), I’ll never know, but the fact remains: you won’t answer the question.

    Why is voter ID somehow racist?

  89. RTFMPEP April 8, 2021 10:14 pm

    @87

    If there’s an original thought in your head, it’s in solitary confinement.

  90. B April 8, 2021 10:24 pm

    @ RTFMPEP “White supremacists are the root of all race-related violence in the US, and blah blah blah . . .”

    Just, FYI, 100% of those minority-owned businesses in Portland, Oakland, Minneapolis, etc. that were destroyed last summer in those “mostly peaceful protests” were destroyed by the Left.

    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-05-29/minneapolis-minority-business-owners-awake-to-destruction

  91. B April 8, 2021 11:04 pm

    @ Anon “As to “Ben Shapirosphere,” it is unfortunate that the focus is so often on him engaging college students, as those really are unfair confrontations, with college students being Sheeple, and — like you — lacking a true understanding of the foundations of the philosophies at point”

    Shapiro always preaches to argue from principle and avoid personal attacks. He’s always polite. Shapiro’s strategy is to first determine who you want to convince. When confronted with an obstinate and obnoxious opponent, Shapiro’s strategy is to let said opponent make a raging ass of himself to the audience.

    This strategy obviously works.

    By the way, did you notice that no one here is able or willing to explain how voter ID is racist? They never will, of course.

    The reason I keep asking the question is to show a neutral audience that the racism accusations are unfounded while letting RTFMPEP and AAA JJ highlight their personalities. Shapiro-esque?

    BTW, what was it that Malcomb X said about the white liberal? https://www.mtdemocrat.com/letters/we-should-have-listened/

  92. AAA JJ April 9, 2021 9:03 am

    “Fine, then why do you assert voter ID is racist?”

    Here are a couple articles that explain voter ID requirements’ racist impacts. Try to read them. I realize that you have trouble getting past headlines, but actually try to read these.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/new-voter-suppression

    https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

    “Denmark has over 600 years of history of raiding neighboring lands for slaves and plunder, and were active in the European slave trade for sever hundred years. “Thrall” is the Danish word for slave. Also, the Danish West Indies was an active center of the slave trade until they had their a$$es handed to them in the mid-1800s by their slaves.”

    That’s fascinating. So they had voting during those times? And used voter ID requirements to suppress the votes of former thralls?

    “In contrast, the GOP was founded to do away with slavery, and fought Democrats for decades on Jim Crow.”

    And the GQP today is…what?

    “History. Learn some.”

    Physician heal thyself.

    “BTW, you STILL haven’t answered why voter ID is racist.”

    And you still haven’t explained why it was AOk for 9 White presidents to have the ABA pre-screen judicial nominees, but when the Black president did the exact same thing it was an “incredible and unprecedented lack of transparency.” (Exact quote BTW.) You have an answer for that?

    “Why a 5’6?, 140lb Jewish man so threatens the Left (bigotry perhaps?)…”

    Wow, that’s some projection there. I’m not aware of anybody on “the Left” who is physically, or intellectually, intimidated by Ben Shapiro. He is quite literally a mental midget.

    Not sure why you felt the need to mention he’s Jewish. (Just kidding, I know exactly why.)

    “Shapiro always preaches to argue from principle and avoid personal attacks. He’s always polite. Shapiro’s strategy is to first determine who you want to convince. When confronted with an obstinate and obnoxious opponent, Shapiro’s strategy is to let said opponent make a raging ass of himself to the audience.”

    Here’s a clip of Ben Shapiro applying his super awesome critical reasoning skills to how to deal with the effects of climate change:

    https://youtu.be/f6wlrYwwjWQ

    (Just sell your flooded house and move. Lulz upon lulz upon lulz.)

    Here’s a clip of Ben Shapiro debating an adult instead of a college freshman:

    https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E

    Does Ben Shapiro have a technical degree? Because I’ve been told that people who don’t have technical degrees lack critical reasoning skills.

    Oh, I see his degree is in political science. I guess that means he understands all about technology and has super awesome critical reasoning skills.

  93. AAA JJ April 9, 2021 9:35 am

    ” He’s always polite.”

    Except for when he loses his sh!t like he did when that old English guy exposed him for the fraud he is.