We’re liveblogging the trial now – snark edition.
Livebloggers – Alex Norris, Matt Kupfer, Jon Muchin, and myself. We’ll be blogging in the comments.
This is a project unaffiliated with the petitioners, defense, judges, or whatever. We’re just providing an alternative, hopefully more hilarious liveblog here.
Check out Emily Dunning’s liveblog below for the “official Innermost Parts take”.
—
OK, so the petitioners (UJ-speak for prosecution) keep bringing up this claim that Lev and Alex didn’t recuse themselves when they brought up the SMR, and that its wrong, since they happen to be members of DFA. This line of reasoning is wrong. Lev and Alex are the Senators of the class of 2011 and represent the entire class. They were elected on a platform of, in part, supporting such events, and their votes are public. The Ayers event is open to the entire campus, and it’s entirely appropriate for the Senators representing Twenty Five Percent of the student body to have a say in that event.
Asking Lev or Alex to recuse themselves in these sorts of votes is like asking Ted Kennedy to recuse himself on Universal Healthcare votes because he has cancer.
And a shout out to Rachel Graham Kagan, who started us out once again.
they are allowing testimony on the recusal debate…gee golly willickers.
The Justices look lovely today. What paragons of impartiality, of Justice, of high-minded civic brilliance.
I feel joy knowing that the fate of the Union is in their hands.
apparently the justices read the live blog… cool. We should add more Justice shout outs.
I shouldn’t have said anything.
And the court takes a 5 minute break to straighten out its logic circuits. Remember the last time the court took a break? (Search for “Uh, do you guys want to take a 5 minute break and sober up before you fuck yourselves over even more?”)
http://innermostparts.org/2008/05/03/ze-livebloggin-brooks-v-shuster-rutrick/
maybe Avi should be a lawyer in this case. He seems to be making an argument to the poor kid next to him.
The Justices took a 40 second time-out to decide whether to take a five minute break.
5 minute break declared!
Jamie Ansorge “we’re asking you to take this into account to determine that the Senate would have voted to approve this project if they didn’t recuse themselves”
I think he just asked the court to determine whether the Student Senate would have voted differently if certain circumstances would have been different.
Bush v Gore all over again!
Ok, everyone break and confide.
court officers take a moment to talk amongst themselves. will we consider recusal or not?
We aren’t asking you to rule on recusal, we want you to take that into account and use it in your decision but not make any determination on anything we’re allowed to do in the future.
I’m getting lost in the circular argument.
Andrew Brooks should point out his recusal is his own choice.
Jamie says “the vote was tampered with”. I was there,tampering was attempted. in my opinion, certain senators tried to throw out 60% of the sophomore class’s vote.
He used a variant of involved 5 times in that past sentence. Wow.
haha
does it matter if only 2 senators were involved? that’s probably 1 more than normal. Ryan objects to the recusal being brought up.
I think Jamie just led the witness, just mentioning.
Jamie seems very offended that no one mentions the Student Union in their documents.
where is Jason?
no, Andrew was not elected. He took over for VP Adam Hughes after his death in mysterious circumstances. Not being accusatory here.
“where as” vs. “there of” seems to be an important union debate. maybe we should cut the jargon and tell the truth in terms average citizens such as myself would understand.
Well I’m glad to know that Andrew Brooks can read. I was a bit worried.
Jamie takes some time to re-aquaint himself with the Justices, then gets right in with the asking people to read.
what’s the opposite of laughing gas? i think the court room could use some. Myself included.
was he elected to this “acting VP” role? jw.
Andrew Brooks = OG. I mean, just look at that blazer.
Judah’s swearing in is apparently hilarious.
Andrew Brooks sneaks up to the stage. Judah expresses his concern that he can’t take this court seriously.
The treasurer doesn’t have the “scope” to know anything about SMRs. Which is why the prosecution brought him as a witness.
oh the mystery of f-board. no one knows quite how it works, even it’s leaders.
I knew Jordan wouldn’t stay silent forever. I’ve never seen him quiet for so long.
he better say yes to this. Nice.
I like the justice on Rachel’s right. She seems to like both sides playing by the same rules.
Max Wallach is not an expert as to whether the Senate does anything.
re-re-cross.. do they know that we know that they know we know?
Is max an expert on concern? Also, do we care if Max personally has a problem with Ayers?
Is it just me or does it feel like the witness is very sleepy?
Nipun, you have permission to approach the witness, but not to feed him.
here comes the recusal stuff, even though I think Rachel just promissed it wouldn’t be discussed.
Recusal = Touchy subject
He does remember the email he sent though, oh no maybe not, he asked for a copy of it.
Very reminiscent of Alberto Gonzalez.
let’s define appropriate sources…
Max Wallach can’t seem to remember anything that passes his desk. Which is cool – he’s a busy guy, but this seems to be a problem for the defense.
“I have never seen this document before.” seems to be a favorite phrase of the treasurer
I was not aware that leading the witness applied to the cross-exam, but apparently it’s one of the biggest pillars in the prosecution’s case.
Nipun was just asked how to correctly state that one objects based upon leading the witness. This is a farce.