I mean, is the Court really going to deny CLE credit for organizations (including the Florida Bar and ABA!) who require diverse CLE panels? Apparently so. From Law.com:
Attorneys, professional organizations and legal experts are lashing out at the Florida Supreme Court for a rule that is shaking up lawyers’ ability to receive credit for continuing-education courses required to keep practicing.
The controversial rule, issued by the court in April, prohibits The Florida Bar from approving continuing-education courses offered by any sponsor “that uses quotas based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation in the selection of faculty or participants.”
The court’s decision came in response to a move by The Florida Bar’s Business Law Section, which had adopted a policy regulating composition of faculty at section-sponsored continuing legal education programs.
The Bar section’s policy “imposes quotas” requiring a minimum number of “diverse” faculty, defining diversity in terms of membership in “groups based upon race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and multiculturalism,” the court’s April 15 order said.
The section’s diversity requirement was similar to one endorsed by the American Bar Association in 2016, which means the Supreme Court’s order has also jeopardized Florida lawyers’ participation in ABA continuing-education courses.
The ABA struck back with this brief, authored by appellate gurus Elliot H. Scherker and Brigid F. Cech Samole. It also issued this press release.
There has been lots of criticism of the Court's opinion, including articles like this one from Above the Law, which concludes like this: "Please tell me what century the Florida Supreme Court is in, because it sure doesn’t look like mine or does it?"
Your welcome.
ReplyDeleteDavid, please tell me you're preparing a post on Judge Gayles granting your clients a new trial because the prosecutors invaded the defense camp.
ReplyDeleteI wonder where the Court acquired the perception of a problem. Hopefully it is not from the same cartoon lizard worshipped by our other two branches.
ReplyDelete7:03 - DOM is too modest to post about his own victories.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article252831783.html
https://www.law360.com/whitecollar/articles/1404097/judge-orders-new-trial-after-ausas-deliberately-misled-him
The ABA represents fewer than 50% of lawyers. It's a partisan, activist organization. Racial quotas are unconstitutional. Good for the Court.
ReplyDelete11:00 am LOLOLOLOL. Be secure in your privilege.
ReplyDeleteThis diversity industry is really about conformity. I will start believing in their sincerity when the NCAA starts demanding that division I basketball rosters adhere to the same diversity guidelines that every non-athletic department does.
ReplyDeleteNonviolent capitol rioter gets 8 months jail. Treated completely different in every way from portland rioters and other DC rioters. Perfect opportunity to reach out to conservatives about overincarceration. But alas, crickets... DOM?
ReplyDelete@6:34 - the attacks on the U.S Capitol in an effort to interfere with and thereby wrongly overturn a valid election are "completely different" than "portland rioters and other DC rioters." One was a failed coup, the other was old fashioned (and still wrong and punishable) lawlessness. These two things are not comparable.
ReplyDeleteCommentary on DOM’s victory here:
ReplyDeletehttp://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2021/07/another-one-bites-dust.html?m=1
817
ReplyDeleteLet's look at your two points.
1. Interfering with democracy. Really? This justifies 8 months? The certification was delayed. Big woop. Protesters purposely disrupted and delayed the kavanaugh confirmation, which was also a constitutional process. They werent even charged federally, and certainly not for a felony... they got the equivalent of tickets. They are liberal heroes!
2. This was a failed coup. Wow. Let's put aside your ridiculous characterization of 1/6 generally as a coup attempt, where not a single shot was fired by a single protester/rioter. In America, we judge people for their individual actions. The guy who got 8 months took part in no violence. He entered without permission and stayed for 15 minutes. Perhaps took a selfie. That deserves 8 months? A felony conviction by itself isnt enuf? 2 weeks wouldn't be enough?
Let me repeat: ****JUST ENTERING and staying for 15 minutes *** deserves jail for more than half a freakin year?????? Take the man away from his family for....TRESPASSING!!!!
You have got to be joking***
How much for pushing a cop to get inside and waltzing around for 30 minutes like a dummie....5 years? 10 years?
How about punching a cop, encouraging others to enter, stealing stuff, trying to cover your tracks, and no confession.....25 years? Maybe 35?
You tell us mr prosecutor...cant wait to hear!
8 months is an outrage! Any other country or even this one until now, he would’ve been summarily shot. Hell, Desantis has passed laws that require minimum mandatories for much less.
ReplyDeleteI find 634 and 933's comment ironic. These are the type of comments I hear every day from people who are outraged by the simple act of not standing for the national anthem and who over the years have held positions like "America, love it or leave it." Yet they downplay the act of capturing by force the United States Capitol building while Congress was in session.
ReplyDeleteIts a real travesty that the extreme right wing is suffocating and suppressing the the wing of the Republican party that actually understands and loves this country - people on the national level like the Bushes, Romney, McCain, and Sasse, and closer to home people like Carlos Curbelo (he may have lost an election to a democrat, but he lost because of Trump and the extreme right pulling support for him and leaving him in a vacuum against an otherwise weak opponent).
958
ReplyDeleteThis particular defendant didnt "capture the Capitol by force."
Ok?
Im not downplaying anything.
***You*** are playing a game of guilt by association.
Dont pivot to generalities. Dont say some guy found zip ties. Dont say there was a gallows in the crowd. Dont say some guy had a gun.
***This is irrelevant***. ***This guy*** trespassed. Period!
8 months?
Your view is he should be punished for 8 freakin months because ***other people in the crowd** used violence.
How much of a psychopath do you have to be to enjoy when your political opponents are treated unfairly?
"This guy" was part of the mob/force of men that captured the Capitol by force. Without "this guy" and the others similarly situated, the handful of especially bad actors would not have been able to capture the Capitol.
ReplyDelete"This guy" was, to use a word I'm sure you're familiar with, an accomplice. This is not political. Shit, I've been a republican for over 20 years. The Capitol was taken by force and member of Congress were forced to flee and hide for their safety. And you're making this about my politics? You're calling me a psychopath?
249
ReplyDelete"Without "this guy" and the others similarly situated, the handful of especially bad actors would not have been able to capture the Capitol."
You have it precisely backwards. This guy would have never entered the capitol had the violent rioters not assaulted police officers leaving the place open.
How can you not see that?
You blame joe nobody?
And in case you missed it, he certainly wanst charged with being an accomplice. He didnt conspire with anyone or agreet to help or assist anyone. He is an idiot who saw an opportunity to waltz around the capitol. He probably believed a bunch of nonsense online and is prob borderline nutjob...
Look at portland where some occupied and tried to burn a police station. Anyone who saw an opportunity and trespassed or threw a water bottle isnt "part of the mob/force of men that captured the [police station] by force."
In this country, we are all accountable only for our own actions. Sorry this principle is foreign to you!