Garamond.

 I really wanted to write this post in Garamond font, but the Blogger platform doesn't allow it.  The D.C. Circuit, which just banned the font, would be proud.  Twitter took notice.  I don't understand the dust-up as Garamond is a perfectly acceptable font.  Slate covers the scandal here:

So if a lawyer’s brief is written in a difficult font, that might make it seem more complicated than it actually is. But Schwarz says the biggest problem with Garamond is its small size, especially for older judges. He describes Garamond as “elegant” and “pretty” but “thin to print” and notes that it becomes impossible to read on your tablet or computer screen. The court’s notice nods toward this as the reason behind the change, stating that Garamond “appears smaller than the other two typefaces.” And now that most documents are digitized and printing is less common, Schwartz predicts larger fonts will continue to become more popular.
But why did the courts decide to be anti-Garamond now? Theories have abounded: As Merrick Garland traded his post as head circuit judge for attorney general last week, people wondered if Garland’s exit and Garamond’s ousting were at all related. Was Garland a secret Garamond tyrant, forcing the font on the courts? “It’s unlikely,” says lawyer Sean Marotta, a partner with Hogan Lovells. “But yeah, Merrick Garland got one vote like everyone else on the court on these issues.” Instead, Marotta thinks that the D.C. Circuit’s message was targeted at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Appellate Staff, who are known to use Garamond in their briefs.
John Elwood, a partner with the law firm Arnold & Porter, tweeted that Garamond is a popular trick used to “shave serval pages off a brief.” He said on a phone call that federal filing rules for rehearing petitions switched from having a 15-page limit to a word limit in 2016. “But, before that point,” he says, “people would file a Times New Roman opening brief, a Times New Roman reply brief, they would lose, and then they would file a rehearing petition, and suddenly it would be in Garamond.” Elwood decided after reading the D.C. Circuit’s notice to test Garamond out for himself: His 25-page Times New Roman brief became 21 pages.

I can't believe Elwood gave up a trick that all of us have used... snitches get stitches.

Debate

If you're interested, I'm debating Andrew Fleischman over at Simple Justice (Scott Greenfield's blog) on whether rich defendants face disadvantages in the criminal justice system.

Here's his opening post:

David Oscar Markus recently wrote an editorial on behalf of his clients, the family of Ghislaine Maxwell, in which he said that “the rich do not enjoy enormous advantages in a federal criminal case.”1 If anything, they are greatly disadvantaged.” I’d love to live in a world where this was true. But justice ain’t cheap, and the tools a criminal defendant needs to rebut the presumption of guilt our system heaps upon them often require significant investment.
First off, there’s choosing the correct lawyer. Justice Roberts was not exaggerating when he wrote that a defendant’s inability to pay for their counsel of choice “raises substantial concerns about the fairness of the entire proceeding.”

Few things could do more to ‘undermine the criminal justice system’s integrity,’ than to allow the Government to initiate a prosecution and then, at its option, disarm its presumptively innocent opponent by depriving him of his counsel of choice—without even an opportunity to be heard.

But the grim reality for Kaley, a woman whose money for her lawyer was forfeited by the State, is a fact of life for the vast majority of criminal defendants who have no say in who will represent them. It can mean an experienced advocate who knows all the local players or a real estate attorney on a side hustle. It’s the difference between a lottery ticket and a paycheck.

Here's the intro to my response:

The criminal justice system crushes people. Men and women. Black and white. Rich and poor. A federal criminal case impacts your liberty, your family, your finances, your mental health, and every other aspect of your life whether you are rich or poor. Each broad category of defendants faces their own hurdles in the system. There is no question that poor defendants face enormous challenges in trying to mount an effective defense again a government with unlimited resources, what Andrew rightly calls “a bit like [fighting] a grizzly bear.” There’s an unfortunate perception out there, however, that the governmental grizzly bear isn’t as interested in gobbling up the rich. But that perception is wrong. This particular bear loves plump and shiny prey.

Michael Sherwin appears on 60 Minutes...

 ... and does a great job discussing the Capitol Riots.

Prosecutors have not yet charged any Capitol rioters with sedition. But asked whether he anticipates those charges, federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin says, “I believe the facts do support those charges.” https://t.co/QttmisXpO1 pic.twitter.com/CLq0xYdAzh

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) March 21, 2021

You can watch the whole thing here.

Should Justice Breyer retire?

 There's been a big push by some liberals because they see a tight window for Biden to get a Justice confirmed and they don't want another RBG situation.  Here's the AP covering the story:

Forgive progressives who aren’t looking forward to the sequel of their personal “Nightmare on First Street,” a Supreme Court succession story.
The original followed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision to forgo retirement from the high court, located on First Street in Washington, when Democrats controlled the White House and the Senate during six years of Barack Obama’s presidency, until 2015.
Despite some pointed warnings of what might happen, Ginsburg remained on the bench until her death last year at age 87. President Donald Trump replaced the liberal icon with a young conservative, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and cemented a 6-3 conservative majority on the court just over a month before he lost his bid for a second term.
In the updated version, 82-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer plays the leading role. He is the oldest member of the court and has served more than 26 years since his appointment by President Bill Clinton.
With spring comes the start of the period in which many justices have announced their retirement. Some progressives say it is time for Breyer to go, without delay. Other liberal voices have said Breyer should retire when the court finishes its work for the term, usually by early summer.
“He should announce his retirement immediately, effective upon the confirmation of his successor,” University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos wrote in The New York Times on Monday.
Campos’ plea stems from the Democrats’ tenuous hold on power.
A Democrat, President Joe Biden, lives in the White House and his party runs the evenly divided Senate only because the tie-breaking 51st vote belongs to Vice President Kamala Harris.
But there is no margin for a senator’s death or incapacitating illness that could instantly flip control to Republicans. Campos noted that the party composition of the Senate has changed more often than not in each two-year session of Congress since the end of World War II.
Breyer has remained mum about his plans, at least publicly. His last comment on the topic of retirement was made to Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick in an interview published in December. “I mean, eventually I’ll retire, sure I will,” Breyer said. “And it’s hard to know exactly when.”

More judges on the way?

 The judicial conference is recommending 3 more district judges in the SDFLA.  But there's a real question of whether any judges will be confirmed right now, with the JNC not being supported by Rubio or Scott.  Rubio apparently has his own JNC.  Scott wants nothing to do with that either.  So will any judges get blue slips going forward?  There's a real concern with people I'm speaking with that no judges will be confirmed unless President Biden and the Democratic Senate get rid of the blue slip process in Florida.  We shall see.

Here's a recent TBT article about the back and forth on the JNC:

Florida’s two Republican senators, Rick Scott and Marco Rubio, are refusing to participate in a longstanding, bipartisan system for nominating federal judges that Florida legal insiders say has produced non-political, competent judicial nominees for decades.

Both Scott and Rubio have said they won’t participate with Florida House Democrats who are setting up Florida’s federal Judicial Nominating Commissions — even though bipartisan cooperation has long been typical.

Scott and Rubio called it an infringement on the Senate’s exclusive right to confirm judges.

Instead, the two senators say they’ll rely on their own sources for recommending judicial nominees, as well as on senators’ traditional prerogative to single-handedly block nominees in their home states.