Hi, Fediverse:

Whew. I finished this week's blog post. Do your thing, Mastodon.

https://terikanefield.com/beware-the-lawyers-follow-up/

It's a follow up from last week, answering some of the questions and comments I got.

In response to people telling me that I am overestimating the ability of people to decode legal news, I attempt to prove this hypothesis:

If people stop listening to legal pundits speculating, they wouldn’t feel confused and they wouldn’t think they need help from lawyers decoding the news.

1/

Beware the Lawyers (follow-up) - Teri Kanefield

Last week I summarized Peter Arenella’s 1998 piece, The Perils of Legal Punditry. Among other things, Arenella argues that much of legal punditry is “Hot air that passes for legal commentary.” If you missed it, start here. I suggested that people don’t need lawyers to decode the news. I turned off my comments and added […]

Teri Kanefield
@Teri_Kanefield thanks for these. slight typo “Cannon was nominated by Trump and confirmed in November of 2000.”
@nadams I'm not seeing the error. (me tired)
@Teri_Kanefield in the Cannon backstory.
@nadams Right but I don't see what is wrong with it.
@Teri_Kanefield she was confirmed in 2020, not 2000
@Teri_Kanefield You wrote 2020 in the timeline but 2000 in the paragraph.

@WearsHats Got it.

Sheesh I told you I'm tired.

@Teri_Kanefield @WearsHats no worries. Thanks again for these :)

@Teri_Kanefield Took me a bit to spot it. I'm also tired, and that one is very easy to miss.

Also, I agree. I DVR several news and politics shows, but I've taken to just fast forwarding past all the TV lawyers. I understand well enough and the speculation is pointless.