The Fundamental Dishonesty Of The Supreme Court

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

Hey everybody. Welcome to another edition of Thinking Like A Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. I am joined by some colleagues. I’ve got Kathryn Rubino over here.

Kathryn Rubino:

Hello.

Joe Patrice:

And Chris Williams. What’d it do? And we’re from Above the Law. We do the thing where we write about all the big stories in legal, but we take some time every week to chat with you all on this podcast about the biggest stories of the week. That

Chris Williams:

Silk song. Yeah. Yes. That is the biggest story. Small Talk has already started fanfare, what have you. I’ve been waiting on this fucking game for five to six years. It is out. It is so good. It is great. It’s amazing. And then I mentioned Silk Song, so I’m just happy that it’s out. Finally,

Kathryn Rubino:

What’s the best track?

Chris Williams:

Oddly enough, there is a soundtrack related to the game. I don’t know any of the song titles. They’re not really named like that. There are some good songs. Oh good. But yeah, it’s like a platforming game. Not sure if that means anything to you. It’s like a metro mania. Yeah, so it’s like Pong but different. No, but it’s really good. It’s really good. It’s similar to Hollow Night for anybody else who’s part of the fandom, but it’s its own game. They really fleshed out Hornet as their own character, so that’s going to make sense to what may be a good amount of the people listening to the podcast because as soon as it went selling the platform to buy, it went down. There was immediate, there was so much traffic. So a lot of people are playing Silk song, so it’s cool.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, my big personal big story of the week is the start of the school year, and my daughter started preschool, so cute. Also 2-year-old program. Dropped her off at school and utterly unbothered. No tears, no nothing. Just like, yeah, they’ve got pretty cool stuff here, ma. See you later. Peace.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. I mean,

Kathryn Rubino:

Hey listen, she’s an independent queen. We got to do what we do. Okay.

Chris Williams:

We got to stand those.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, and it didn’t make me feel bad. I thought maybe I would get a little teary or I’d feel some sort of a way, but I was like, great. You’re developing appropriately for your age. I love that for you.

Joe Patrice:

It’s good to know you’re not going to lock her in a tower like the Rapunzel bomb or something. That’s good.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I like that you made a Disney princess reference right there, Joe. I mean, it’s

Joe Patrice:

A fairytale that predates

Chris Williams:

Disney.

Kathryn Rubino:

Okay.

Chris Williams:

Well Brothers Grim doesn’t have the same ring to it.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, mother Goel, that’s the Disney version. But yeah, that was a big thing on my agenda this week. We also started dancing school, which again, you guys, the pictures I am getting of all these milestone firsts cannot be overstated.

Chris Williams:

Yep.

Kathryn Rubino:

Super cute.

Chris Williams:

You got to make sure you, what is it? Photo booking, whatever, what’s it called? The prior to internet Pinterest things. Scrapbook. Scrapbook, yeah. You got to make sure you scrapbook them. Then once they turn 18 you’re like, here it is.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. We have a family shared digital album and I think there are, she’s only two years old and I think there’s 9,000 pictures on that, which I have to be very clear, is already cultivated. There are many, many, many more pictures on my just phone library, curated. These are the ones that I’ve curated for the sort of extended family. And already at, I was actually very

Joe Patrice:

Nervous what cultivated was going to mean in that sentence, and then I figured out being that curated, I was like, where’s this going?

Kathryn Rubino:

I grew it in the backyard.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Meanwhile I got new cowboy boots, so

Kathryn Rubino:

There’s that. Oh gosh, this is God damnit. This is going to be a legal tech conversation, isn’t it?

Joe Patrice:

I don’t know what you mean. I said that I got cowboy boots. I don’t yet. Wait, where did you get cowboy

Chris Williams:

Boots Show? Wait one second, one second, one second. I don’t care where you got ’em. What are they for? Are they made for walking?

Joe Patrice:

There you go. There you go. So yeah, no, I was in Austin. It’s interesting you mentioned that. I was in fact at a legal tech conference in Austin and that was part of the gift that Grumble

Kathryn Rubino:

Grumble

Joe Patrice:

That 8:00 AM gave people who attended

Kathryn Rubino:

The conference is the time that

Chris Williams:

You got them?

Joe Patrice:

No, that is the name of the company. But yeah, 8:00 AM

Chris Williams:

So did you get an email asking for your foot, like your shoe size or did it just have ’em all lined up? Well, no was

Joe Patrice:

Part of registration. There was a, it’s part of registration. One of the links was would you be interested in getting these boots? Give us your info.

Chris Williams:

Oh, did you see where it said Sponsored by Quentin Tarantino in the bottom right corner.

Joe Patrice:

No, they’re

Kathryn Rubino:

Fancy boots too, I hear.

Joe Patrice:

Oh yeah, yeah. No, it was really, I say it was a very, well, amazingly well well-run conference and I go to a lot of these all the time these days. So it was really good to see what they were up to. I was on a couple of panels. We had a lot of fun on those. So yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

A good time was had by all.

Joe Patrice:

Is

Kathryn Rubino:

AI going to take over the world, Joe?

Joe Patrice:

No.

Kathryn Rubino:

Good.

Joe Patrice:

I mean it’s going to do a lot of things

Kathryn Rubino:

Probably all bad.

Joe Patrice:

No, no. A lot of it’s good too. But yeah, actually some of the panels I was on were AI related. I had no kidding. One of the, arguably the best attended one at least that wasn’t a keynote or anything, was a panel that we did that went off really well about just tips for lawyers who are interested in getting into ai. And each of us had 10 tips and we rolled through use cases that they could have. It’s really interesting.

Kathryn Rubino:

That sounds kind of fun

Joe Patrice:

For

Kathryn Rubino:

Legal tech.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, no, but really good. Some of us actually, were talking about whether or not we should take that on the road, some of those tips and stuff to try to let other people know

Kathryn Rubino:

Half panel will travel.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, exactly. Anyway, point is, I wasn’t going to talk about any of this. I was going to talk about the boots, but you decided that you really wanted to hear

Kathryn Rubino:

About Tech. Stop it. You everybody knows that that was just your sly way to pretend like you’re playing our game, but really you could talk about ai.

Joe Patrice:

I don’t know what you’re thinking, I thinking about it. So anyway, I think with that we can be done. There we go. Since we’re doing that now. Alright, so let’s talk about what happened in the week. That was, I wasn’t here last week. I was obviously at that conference, so hopefully we aren’t going to go over anything the same. So I think the biggest issue of the week, maybe not traffic wise, but certainly on our website, but certainly significance was a story You talked about that there was an interview where we now have federal judges who seem at least anonymously in some of their cases, I believe, right? Were they?

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah.

Joe Patrice:

Oh, were they all? Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, they all were.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, I would’ve thought, but I guess I didn’t.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, it is somewhat imprudent as a federal judge to talk smack about the Supreme Court on the record

Joe Patrice:

Fair. But the point is they’re talking smack directly about the Supreme Court to journalists now.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, they sure are. NBC News had some interviews with, I think it was 10 federal judges who take issue with the Supreme Court, not just their sort of right would Bent Bend, which is also a problem. But their overuse really of the shadow docket was a big call for concern. We’ve talked about the shadow docket, which is the emergency docket on this podcast before, and we will continue to refer to it as the shadow docket, even though Brett on the record this past week saying he really would like it if we didn’t call it the shadow docket, well stop doing shady shit and maybe we can stop.

Chris Williams:

We could call it what about the Sneaky report?

Kathryn Rubino:

The Sneaky report just as evocative, which I think is definitely part of the reason why it has stuck for so long. So the shadow docket’s obviously done a lot of damage because it’s done without a written record, right? There’s no opinion, there’s no, there’s not supposed to be anyway, any precedential value. But at the same time, even though that is true, the court is also getting really mad when without writing precedent, binding opinion, the lower courts are not referring to it that way or trying to divine what they actually meant by the shadow docket.

Joe Patrice:

Well, alright, let’s pull back and just explain what this is. So the point of the shadow docket in theory is that it is a non-IT based decision. It’s not presidential, they haven’t had full briefing on it, whatever it’s, it’s an emergency petition to take action that needs to happen faster than a case would take to conclude so much like any other kind of injunction, temporary restraining order except at the Supreme Court level. So it’s when there’s something going on that’s worked its way up to the court that the court is asked, Hey, I know we don’t have time to go through a full briefing, but can you put the kibosh on what’s going on here for us? And they do that if they act on the shadow docket. Theoretically it’s part of the traditional restraining orders and injunctions. It’s supposed to be done on a temporary basis with very little briefing, but that’s hedged by the fact that it’s temporary and then they will revisit it later and make it right. The problem with the shadow docket as we call it, is that this court in particular has been aggressive about utilizing it to make sneaky merits decisions.

And it’s gotten to the point where, as you pointed out, where you alluded to, I should say it doesn’t have presidential value, but this court is acting like it is. Gorsuch is straight up writing, concurrences calling anybody who makes a different opinion at the lower court level, defying them, even though technically all the Supreme Court claimed to have done is temporarily stayed one opinion until further review. When other unrelated issues come up that touch on the same ideas, Gorsuch is calling that defiance.

Kathryn Rubino:

So that’s kind of the background that we’re dealing with and without the sort of guidance of a full written opinion, they are very much leaving the lower courts in the lurch If there’s a lower court that ruled against the administration and then without explaining why they’re doing what they’re doing, the Supreme Court’s just kind of coming in and saying, Nope, we’re ruling for the administration. It really amplifies the rhetoric of the Trump administration saying that the lower court judges were out to lunch, that somehow they were in the wrong, that they were out to get the Trump administration, all this sort of very violent rhetoric that’s gone on around the courts in the Trump two reign

Joe Patrice:

And we’re seeing an uptick in threats against district court judges already when these judges do things like rule that no, the Trump administration can’t just lay off the entire National Weather Service or something like that. The response to that, if it gets to the Supreme Court and they’re just issuing an order that’s like, we agree those lower courts seemed wrong and then say nothing else, it just validates that,

Kathryn Rubino:

Right?

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

And so these judges feel very justified that they are being left out to dry. They are not getting sort of the support that the system is built to have because whether a lower court judge is right or wrong, the fact that the appellate or Supreme Court decisions are written out, reasoned, go through all the reasons pro and con, that all creates that kind of justification and built into the system.

Joe Patrice:

I mean, we’re going to talk about this person a little bit more later, but Amy Coney Barrett had that famous instance where she said, everyone just read the opinion, don’t criticize us, read the opinion, which was always absolutely bullshit considering she exists in a world where her own court issues monumental significant decisions without an opinion all the time. But it speaks to that era of read the opinion. Well, if there’s no opinion, then that’s when these things start to fester. I also would go back to the annual report that the chief put out last year on the judiciary where he addressed the uptick in threats against lower court judges. And his response to that was not we’re going to take these measures to protect them or make it invest in these sorts of measures to instruct the public about not doing it. He just kind of wrote, you all should stop criticizing judges. We rule you like Gods. That was not really the message that was particularly helpful. And it’s one that if anything, I think as opposed to fixing the problem, this is kind of why that mentality exacerbates it. Because if that’s the position and you start from on high saying, no, no, of course the lower court was wrong with nothing else, you have put them in those crosshairs.

Kathryn Rubino:

And obviously there’s a fair amount of criticism about the sort of not explaining yourself, not showing your work has really been a problem in that. And I think that that’s a big part of this story. But the other sort of big part of this story is the who of who’s calling them out for the shadow docket. And I kind of alluded to it in the top of my comments, but the fact that the lower court judges are doing this is, I can’t remember a similar instance where they are going out of their way to say, this system has worked for a really long time and it’s breaking in front of us.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. I mean, well, in this recent last couple of months, we had an instance where most of this Supreme Court is aggressively in an aggressive assault mode against trial courts. That’s part of that whole injunction case. I do think, look, there were reasons why the nationwide injunctions needed to be reformed. They out of hand in a lot of ways, but the answer to that was not get rid of all of them because they did exist for a purpose and getting rid of all of them. It almost seemed as though the abuses that were happening over the previous four years existed largely to lay the groundwork for the more destructive response that the Supreme Court had. But during that injunction period, during those cases, we did have Alito and folks like that saying like, oh, we have to do all these things because trial judges, yada, yada yada. Meanwhile, the only people on the Supreme Court who actually understand what it’s like to be a trial judge, The Hard work of being a trial judge are the two people who are voting the other way because Sotomayor and Jackson are the only ones who’ve even done this job.

But the way in which the majority wraps themselves in this idea that they understand how trials work so much better than everyone else by virtue merely of the fact that they were bigger hacks for the Federalist Society than the poor people who ended up on trial court situations is just ridiculous. Yeah, it’s bad and it’s going to be an ongoing problem because we’re going to have more of these injunction stuff and so on, and we are going to have more threats against judges and as long as this court won’t show its work, and I think that was, you used that term and I think that’s a really good term because do you remember in math class and so middle school or whatever, where it was like, no,

Kathryn Rubino:

Certainly where it comes from

Joe Patrice:

Where you get credit for partial credit

Kathryn Rubino:

For even if you get the wrong answer, you still get some points because you showed your work

Joe Patrice:

Still get some points. But the flip side of that is the reason they wanted you to show your work was we were, at least for me, cheating, but yeah. Well, yeah, because I was definitely in the era where we were on that cusp between the people who were still the teachers who were still saying, someday you’re going to need to do math and you won’t have a calculator in your pocket, which is untrue. And we were on that cusp of where, yeah, of course you can use a calculator, but we need to know that you didn’t just cheat your way to this answer, so you’ve got to show the steps that the calculator otherwise is doing so that we know that you got

Kathryn Rubino:

It. This proves the logic. Even if you maybe add three plus two incorrectly, knowing that that was how you had to get the answer is part of it.

Joe Patrice:

But I mean, this goes to the Calvin Ball conversation that we’ve been having. Oh, that Justin Jackson calls them, accuses them Calvin Ball, and that’s the issue. You can’t show your work when there is no work when you’re just reverse engineering from a result. It’s a lot easier to just say, I’ve reversed engineered from a result than to try and explain yourself. All right. Switching gears a little bit, so kind of a sandwich. The meat of the Supreme Court sandwich is going to be about law schools.

Chris Williams:

Never Say that sentence again, please.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, yeah. No, Paul Campas law professor Colorado obviously wrote a years ago, wrote kind of the definitive work on how expensive law school was getting and all. He’s back on this subject, and it’s interesting, he did some numbers and broke ’em down, and I wrote a piece about what his findings were, and as it turns out, even correctly adjusted for inflation, the price of law school wildly more than it ever used to be, obviously. But for the first 10 year period since 1955, the price of law school didn’t go up all that much a mere 4% over where it was from that 20 15, 20 16 school year. That’s significant. And when I say, oh, it didn’t go up that much, I want to be clear, the previous two decades worth were the 2015 was 33% in real terms, more expensive than tuition was in 2005, which itself was 33% more than it had been in 1995, which was 46% more than 1985, and that was 63% more than 1975. To give a sense of how aggressively out of control this has been, but now down to 4% uptick, what do we think about this?

Kathryn Rubino:

I think it’s interesting, especially given the timeframe that we’re looking at, because some of the bigger legal education stories within that post 2016 timeframe has been the Trump bump of law school applications. In 2016, we saw an increase in the number of people applying to law school this cycle. Again, in the Trump two era, we’re also seeing, well, more people taking the entrance exams, we’ll kind of see what happens at the end of this cycle. We’re in the middle of it at the moment, so it’s not necessarily that there are people who are just oping out of law school. I think that might be part of it, and that’s part of Campos analysis as well. But it’s not like they’re not trying to scrounge people going to law school. And they’re also in the same timeframe, also minimizing the import of the lsat. A lot of schools are accepting the GRE, they’re exploring whether or not entrance exams are even required. So kind of opening up the doors of law school in the same way. Well,

Joe Patrice:

They need to,

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah,

Joe Patrice:

Because enrollments are up but down. There’s temporary uptick over whatever, but they’re down as a general matter

Largely because it had eventually reached the point where it costs too much for somebody making a decision who could sit there and go, I could also just work for a bank for a couple of years and make a lot more money and have no debt. And that’s an issue. You’re losing talent on that. And the argument as he talks, a lot of the argument had been people used to pay a lot pay. What it was charged was what you paid. Now, more and more people are not paying full sticker price, but that’s because they’re charging a massive amount and making all sorts of adjustments to bring people in, some of which have been for noble reasons, but a lot of it was just to keep asses in seats. They were charging too much, and that eventually is going to catch up with them.

Chris Williams:

I do wonder how law schools, the price will trend as the student loans from the government aren’t as

Robust as they were in the past. Because as we’re already starting to see if this administration, you’re going to get less money from the state to go to law school, even if you have to pay it back eventually. And I think that will be a big bottlenecking force because quite frankly, I don’t know if I would’ve went to law school if I had to take out private loans, at least to the amount, to the degree that I was able to get. What is it? I dunno if Stafford loan is the word for, but the things that came from the government. And I think that that’s going to be one of the big things that incentivize people to look elsewhere.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. I also think it’s really interesting because lawyers, new lawyers don’t actually make that much money. And I know that that’s a weird thing to say. As we’ve talked a lot about sort of big laws compensation race, which is still true.

Joe Patrice:

I should have a sound effect for the binomial distribution,

Kathryn Rubino:

And that’s because the majority of people who graduate from law school are not going to big law. The majority of them are doing something else, and the amount of money that they’re making is not really enough to service those loans.

Chris Williams:

Also, petition for the binomial distribution sound to be really loud, but then really soft and

Kathryn Rubino:

Then loud again. Yes. And if you’re curious as to what we’re actually talking about, if you look at the graph of starting lawyer salaries, there looks like there are two big humps of a camel. One is for the folks who are going a big law, and that’s a much higher number. Then there’s a dead zone where there’s not money, not a lot people making that amount of money. And then again, around less than half, I think of those starting salaries of big law, you get another big hump of people who make that salary. So that’s what we’re talking about there. And when we’re talking about law school and whether people are willing

Joe Patrice:

To, I guess it’s not omi we’re saying it wrong, it’s bimodal, but as I was saying it, I was like, I don’t think it’s binomial, but I’ve been doing all these math trivia questions

Chris Williams:

That makes this ian in me happy. But the one mode will be loud and the other mode will be soft.

Kathryn Rubino:

But the other sort of, I think, aspect of whether the future of lawyers is the question of technology and how that plays into the future of the profession.

Joe Patrice:

You got to be a little nervous about the AFO mentioned AI situation, not with those boots.

Kathryn Rubino:

But I think it is interesting to me that AI sort of hangs over the question about whether or not people want to go to law school, because I think out of the professions, lawyers are amongst the best protected from going out of business entirely. First of all, because of professional organizations like the state bars and federal and national bars kind of creating ethical rules around when you can and cannot use AI kind of means that there will always have to be a person involved. I don’t think that we’ll allow that to be, to be,

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, that’s not really my issue. I just think that you will not need the level of associates functionally. AI is never going to be particularly, there’s huge problems with it. It’s never going to replace human thought on these sorts of things. It’s stupid. It does a bunch of dumb things that said, so do summers doing research memos, and you don’t need them when you have AI and they’re cheaper, they take shorter

Kathryn Rubino:

Lunches and there’s cute, but I mean, obviously there’s going to be some impact to eight to the legal profession, but what I’m saying is that somebody who’s considering potential careers out there, I think that the legal career is more insulated from some of those AI pressures than others. Right. Coding is not really a good job anymore because of ai. There are other professions that are going to be hurt a lot more, more quickly than legal. So I think it’ll be interesting.

Joe Patrice:

Alright. Well, in the last 30 seconds or so that we have, we’ll talk about the third story, which back to the other slice of rye in our Supreme Court sandwich. Amy Coney Barrett has a book out. Does she? She’s going to, anyway. Yeah, no, she was talking about it. She had to talk to her brother-in-law about the Dobbs decision, and he said he read it because told everybody to read the opinion. She was really uncomfortable and it was sad that she had to talk about that decision with people on her vacation. And

Kathryn Rubino:

Supreme Court justices, they’re just like us.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Well,

Kathryn Rubino:

When these sorts of major changes to rights happen, do you think that her vacation should be more sacred than anybody? These conversations were happening across vacations everywhere,

Joe Patrice:

And also it’s such nonsense. Supreme Court justices like talking about their jobs. That’s why they’re those kind of awful gunners. Right. Of course, the reason she doesn’t want to talk about it is because she knew there was no real basis to any of the garbage that she was signing her name to, and she knew she was about to get called out by her probably about it. And that must really sting if you’re a Supreme Court justice, that when you say read the opinion, and then people who don’t know anything about the law read the opinion and they’re already going. We’ve read it and now we understand how completely out of left field you guys are.

Chris Williams:

This reminds me of that. Some judge at Stanford, I think his name was Kyle.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, the Kyle Duncan bit. Yeah.

Chris Williams:

Yeah. The students who actually read his opinions and were like, Hey, man, what the fuck? And he’s like, how dare you. She’s just doing a polite version of this.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, that’s a great analogy. This feeling of, well, I wrote this opinion that I assume will just exist in kind of a hermetically sealed court report as federal reporter somewhere, and then if it comes up, they freak out and are upset about it. I feel more, I think that was a great analogy. I think what’s happening here is a little bit more insidious. Everybody who deals with Federalist society people, there’s always one of ’em, right? A lot of ’em are just aggressive trolls who are interested in having Chick-fil-A night during every night of pride and stuff like that.

Chris Williams:

And you know who they are because they’re wearing bow ties.

Joe Patrice:

Well see, and I’m not necessarily going to go there because some of the bow tie people fall into this category. I feel like there’s always at least one who is the reluctant executioner. The people who are like, I really do feel for you, and I wish there was a better way, but the courts just can’t do it. It pains me to say that we can’t have the 14th amendment anymore, but I really am with you. It’s like a compulsion.

Kathryn Rubino:

You don’t want to be mad, be somebody to get mad at them.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. It’s like a suck up compulsion of like, I’m going to ruin everything, but I’d love to be able to still go to the party and all of these clips, and obviously we don’t have the full book here, but all of these little passages that CNN had of it fell into this kind of mentality. This, oh, I feel so bad that I have to do these awful things and hurt people. And I’m like, you don’t have to indulge that folks. You don’t have to respect people who give you that kind of line. They can do the right thing or not. You don’t have to let them get around it. But anyway, in the next element of Amy Coney Barrett is going to make me become the joker, she had another conversation, another interview where she talked about how, I don’t think there’s a problem with the constitutional crisis at all, but as part of it, she tried to defend all of these attacks as saying, well, we make decisions.

They’re not an opinion poll. And I’m like, she said, we make these hard decisions. They aren’t an opinion poll, which is absolutely insane because in her book, so this is the thing she said in this interview in her book, one of the passages that CNN had was her going off about how justifying Dobbs and saying, it’s not the first step toward tearing down marriage equality or access to contraception. She said, well, because unlike marriage and contraception, these things are, those were more broadly popular. So one, she says that the reason she’s not going to take those rights away is because of an opinion poll. So I don’t even understand what she’s talking about here, but moreover, the opinion polls are wrong. Marriage equality is way less popular historically than abortion had been. Abortion was widely popular when they struck it down, going even further under her logic of, well, it has to be because it’s not broadly popular. We can’t do it. I defy her to look at what the numbers were on interracial marriage when they did loving, because I’ll point out, it didn’t tip into the, okay, I guess maybe numbers until the nineties.

It’s just such an act and it’s such a tired, lazy act, and I feel like she gets away with it because there’s just too many fawning people who fall for that. Like, oh, you know what?

Kathryn Rubino:

She shrugs. She can’t help it.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Chris Williams:

There used to be some academic, and I don’t know when the time would start, but there’s a shift when the Supreme Court became a PR department. This is just pr, I think about, what is it? I think the average Canadian or so doesn’t even know the names of the people in their Supreme Court. There was this point in American culture where the justices were able to amass sort of cult to personality where we cared about them as anything outside of being decision making, automatons, and I kind of wish we were back there.

Kathryn Rubino:

So does Amy Coney Barrett, right? That’s another thing she had said in the previous industry that she missed the days when she could go out to dinner or Supreme Court Justices could go about their lives without being accosted or questioned about their work.

Joe Patrice:

Oh, yeah. She wishes she could go back to the world where justices did their job and could clock out. Yeah, I’ll bet you do. With your $2 million advance on this book. Right?

Kathryn Rubino:

You use it.

Joe Patrice:

Yes.

Kathryn Rubino:

You are now a millionaire as opposed to just for academic,

Joe Patrice:

Unbelievably phony, and it’s just like, ah. Yeah. Alright. Well, alright. With that said, I think we’ve come to the end of another episode together. Thanks for listening. You should subscribe to the show if you haven’t already, so you get all these new episodes when they come out. You should write reviews, say things, give us numbers. Obviously our stars are a little low from a period between hosts. Several years ago when the show got a little salesy and people were mad at it, so we could use some help getting those stars up on some of these rating services. You should be reading Above The Loss. You read this and other stories. Before we talk about ’em here, you should check out other podcasts. Kathryn’s the host of the ot. I’m guest on the Legal Tech Week Journalist round table. You should check out the other offerings of the Legal Talk Network. Always. We’re on social media above blah.com. On Blue Sky is out there. I’m at Joe Patrice. She’s at Kathryn one. Chris is at Rights for Rent and yeah, we’ll check in with you next week.

Chris Williams:

Peace.

Joe Patrice:

Peace.

Continue Reading