Leading Appellate Law practitioner responds to Democrat Party attacks on the Supreme Court

 

The Supreme Court finally gets a reasoned defense to recent political attacks

As reported by Reason.com a leading Appellate Law practitioner, Kannon Shanmugam, has come to the defense of the Supreme Court in response to recent political attacks.  Rather than rebutting the reasoning of recent Supreme Court opinions, the response of a certain political party has been to bully and intimidate the Court by threatening to alter its jurisdiction and make-up.

It is therefore important that Mr. Shanmugam has the courage to point out the obvious.  Namely, that recent attacks (emanating from one political party and one side of the ideological spectrum) are politically-motived and are done in lieu of actually engaging the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on their merits. As Mr. Shanmugam said:

But today, I am breaking that habit to address the recent criticisms of the Supreme Court's legitimacy. I am doing so for a simple reason: because I revere the Supreme Court. I had the fortune of a lifetime to clerk at the Court for one of the greatest Justices of this generation or any other, Antonin Scalia. Since then, I have devoted my professional life to the Court, having spent the last 20 years arguing cases there. My wife and I even got engaged on the Court's front steps. And I firmly believe that, for all the challenges it faces, our Supreme Court is the finest high court in the world—a model for other countries to follow.

Perhaps for that reason, I have found the recent attacks on the Court to be dispiriting. At the risk of giving away the punch line to my remarks, I believe that the criticisms of the Court's legitimacy are unfounded. But more than that, I believe that attacks on the Court's legitimacy are dangerous—undermining public confidence in the Court and imperiling the rule of law. Finally, I believe that critics of the current Court would be better served engaging with the Court's work on the merits.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

The Revenge of the Dinosaurs - Amazon tells its employees to return to the office five days a week (like the early and mid 20th Century)

 

Nothing says "screw you' to your workforce than telling them their work-life balance is no more

Back in the 20th century - and especially before the computer revolution at the end of that century - employers were known for their lack of flexibility.  Using silly terms like "work culture" employers were loathe to consider part-time work or flexible hours. Cracks in the facade appeared toward the turn of the century when networking and laptops made it possible, in some instances, to work from home and still be productive.  But then, after the advent of high-speed internet and advances in wi-fi and cellular data speeds, the early 21st century saw a sharp increase in work from home, often offered as a perk to keep the best talent.

And then during the pandemic, tens of millions of workers were told they had to work from home.  They did so and many loved it and thrived personally and professionally.  

However, as has been reported, Amazon is among the companies now asking office employees to return to the office five days a week.  The cynical response is that this is a stealth layoff, as a certain percentage of workers will find another employer who is less hostile to their private lives.

Adding insult to injury, the company has said this is fair because "warehouse" workers have had to come to work in person the entire pandemic.  Such statements reveal a lack of understanding of how work was changed and that, in fact, location is not as important as it was in the analog age.  That a tech company like Amazon would not understand this is particularly ironic, given that Amazon competes against other companies in terms of talented engineeers and "the best and the brightest" always have other options.  As an Amazon shareholder, I am disappointed management is so clueless that the fact one can order something anywhere one just so happens to be and have it delivered to one's home or virtually anyone else, has changed how human beings interact.

That most US companies use foreign call centers, no matter how poor the customer service provided, also undercuts the crappy argument that everyone must be in the "same location."

And so I ask:  if management at Amzon were all under 30 years of age, would this edict have come out?

Not likely.

It has also been reported that Amazon is consolidating into "hubs," all in places that might be fun to visit but are impossible to buy a house or even a modest condominium:  New York, Seattle, San Francisco, etc.

As an attorney who has worked for a large corporation and/or private law firms, I recall being repeatedly asked to come in on Saturday even though I was given a more modest salary on the promise of "work life" balance.  And I recall being criticized, just before the pandemic, for working part of the day - and coming into the office for the rest of the day - on a huge appellate project.  Because, of course, if they were to let me work at home part of the day, they would have to do so with the other lawyers.  We can't be having that, of course. 

So I have repeatedly told young people choosing careers that they must be aware of management with an old-school mentality.  The benefit of working for a more experienced lawyer who may be able to mentor you must be balanced against the likelihood they have the stereotypical "baby boomer" workaholic mentality that "more is always better" and you must "work harder not smarter." 

It is sad, then, to say that with the Amazon announcement, it seems the dinosaurs are back in charge.  At least until the next asteroid hits.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn