Author: TSA Press

The LSAT is a pretty big deal, assuming, of course, that you are interested in going to law school. Sure, there are other factors that go into a law school’s decision to accept a particular student, but admission is largely dependent on the test scores. So, it’s a pretty big deal when thing start going wrong during the test.

Fresh off the news that LSAC, the organization that administers the LSAT, had to cancel scheduled tests at 30 locations in advance of Monday’s administration of the LSAT, it turns out even more students’ test day was a disaster. Above the Law tipsters referred to it as the Fyre Festival of standardized testing. Yikes.

So what exactly went wrong? Basically, everything. As Dave Killoran, CEO of PowerScore, tweeted, LSAT test centers across the country experienced issues. In some places, proctors didn’t show up, others had router issues, and still other centers were short on the number of tablets (which is how the digital exam is administered), leading in some locations to a delay of the exam and outright cancellation in others.

I spoke with Jay Thomas, Executive Director of Admissions Programs for Kaplan Test Prep, about the snafu and he thinks it is part of the LSAC’s “growing pains” as they move the traditional law school into the 21st century with all-digital administrations of the exam. He also noted there was “staggering” demand for the November administration of the LSAT. Thomas points to the transition to the digital LSAT as part of the reason for that demand. You may recall in the lead up to the all-digital version of the LSAT, the administration of the LSAT was done half digitally and half on paper. Due to the unique status of that administration, LSAC offered a one-time deal that let students cancel their scores and re-take the exam, hence, the off-the-chart demand for the November test date. Thomas is hopeful these kinks will be ironed out by the next administration.

When reached for comment, Kellye Testy, president and CEO of LSAC, provided the following, apologizing to those affected and offering some make-up options:

While most candidates had a smooth test day, we had significant staffing and equipment delivery issues that caused excessive delays at several test centers and prevented candidates from taking the exam at others.

This is completely unacceptable, and we are deeply sorry for the problems our test takers experienced. We are going to do whatever is necessary to fix the situation, so our candidates get the smooth and positive test-day experience they deserve.

Our first concern is for the affected test takers. We are reaching out directly to each of them to extend our sincere apologies and to offer them an expedited make-up test or other options, whatever is best given their individual needs. They will also receive four free law school reports, in recognition of the problems and inconvenience they experienced.

Our staff have moved quickly to nail down make-up test administrations on December 8 at a number of key locations in the U.S., Canada, and Puerto Rico. This will be a nondisclosed, paper-format test, given how quickly we need to administer it. There is no additional cost for this make-up test, and scores will be released as originally scheduled on December 19. We will be communicating these make-up test locations to candidates as they are finalized, and we will continue to be in direct contact with candidates to ensure their needs are being met.

We have never experienced the level of staffing and equipment-delivery issues that we saw this month. These vast majority of these issues are not related to the digital test. They are issues we will fix through better communication and tracking, and operational improvements.

Again, we want to express our deepest apology to the candidates who were affected by the problems at our test centers. Any affected test takers who have questions or concerns should contact our candidate services team directly at LSACinfo@LSAC.org or 215.968.1001.

The fact remains it sucked for those affected. Hopefully, they’re able to regroup from the snafu and get the LSAT score they’re hoping for.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Chicago Law’s Will Baude is one of the conservative legal scholars whose work tries to earnestly and creatively slap lipstick on theory pigs, which makes him much more interesting to read than many of his peers. He’s also willing to commit the occasional conservative apostasy when the rest of his camp drop their masks and reveal that the whole theoretical superstructure is just a convenient fig leaf for contemporary Republican party politics. The point is, Baude is not the sort of cynical ideologue that generally populates conservative academic ranks.

Which is why his recent blog post attempting to deflect the storm of bad press for the Federalist Society is so jarring, because to make any sense at all it must either be nakedly disingenuous or woefully naive — neither of which seem like Baude’s style.

This has led to claims that the Society is in fact a partisan organization because of its supposed role in picking judges, to calls that the organization disavow or denounce various things, and to arguments that members of the society have some moral culpability for what other members of the society do.

“Supposed role in picking judges.” This bit of handwaving refers to FedSoc’s Executive VP Leonard Leo and his unquestioned role as the primary arbiter of Donald Trump’s judicial nominations. Leo’s managed to appoint fully one-quarter of federal appellate judges in a relative blink of an eye — with the help of Mitch McConnell’s willingness to sacrifice the orderly administration of justice for years to create a daunting number of vacancies for Trump.

Similarly, I think it’s a mistake to expect the Federalist Society to take official positions beyond, perhaps, its relatively open-ended mission statement.

Right… because of its tax status. With a group already playing dangerously close to the line in taking advantage of 501c3 status, an official position would most definitely be a mistake.

I am a member of the Federalist Society, but I don’t see things this way and thought I’d try to explain why. As I see it, the Federalist Society is essentially a network that connects thousands of scholars, students, and lawyers. There is obviously some intellectual valence to that network — it is not a random network — but it’s usually a mistake to discuss the network as a collective noun.

It certainly is a network, but it’s a network designed for the purpose of stacking the judiciary and academia with conservative ideologues. The unabashed mission of the organization is to avoid another “Souter moment” by vetting and nurturing “right-minded” individuals for career advancement. Baude notes that he doesn’t see himself as a likely court appointee — which is true — but also irrelevant. Vetting includes finding people who don’t make the cut too. And it ignores that his career as a T14 academic is just as much a part of FedSoc’s mission as finding judges.

But the society doesn’t do anything. Individuals like Leonard Leo and Don McGahn do.

“United Airlines doesn’t fly to Houston, Captain Oveur does.” After repeatedly describing the organization as a network, he’s got to grapple with the question: for what purpose? A network is a little like a poker game — if you look around the network and can’t see how it’s serving its leadership, you’re the sucker. Facebook isn’t a network of elderly people sharing cat photos, it’s a data driven advertising engine.

Ultimately though, this is Baude’s real issue. He notably opposed the Supreme Court’s gutting of organized labor in Janus, arguing that compelling union members to contribute money is not compelled speech and he realizes the negative press around FedSoc affords him an opportunity to double down on his reasoning because unions are, in a very real sense, networks too.

Baude and Eugene Volokh argued at the time that “requiring people only to pay money, whether to private organizations or to the government, is not a First Amendment problem at all.” In other words, just because an organization is speaking with someone’s money doesn’t mean that individual is talking. A better challenge to the reasoning of Abood and Janus would have been that protecting organized labor is a recognized governmental goal much as the social security system was in Lee and the efficient operation of that goal requires the orderly collection of dues regardless of a dissenter’s opinions. Instead we get a spicy libertarian hot take suggesting that unions are entities separate and apart from their members. It’s how GOP candidates always say they care about teachers, just not teacher unions as if those aren’t the same thing.

So when FedSoc lands in the news for hosting raving conspiracy theorists and folks generally saying stupid stuff and people start tying Baude to this circus just because he’s devoted the better part of his life to this organization, he’s got to find a way to say “nah, that’s not me.”

But that’s a cop out.

Leonard Leo using the organization’s Rolodex to fill federal court vacancies and letting Bill Barr toy with jailing seditionists is what FedSoc’s all about and if you offered aid and comfort in building that network, then you own it.

There are no tourists.

FedSoc is a They, not an It [Summary, Judgment]

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Calling a woman judge—now an associate justice of this court—‘attractive,’ as [the defendant] does twice at the outset of his reply brief, is inappropriate because it is both irrelevant and sexist. This is true whether intended as a compliment or not. Such comments would not likely have been made about a male judge. …

Objectifying or demeaning a member of the profession, especially when based on gender, race, sexual preference, gender identity, or other such characteristics, is uncivil and unacceptable. Moreover, the comments in the brief demean the serious business of this court. We review judgments and judicial rulings, not physical or other supposed personal characteristics of superior court judges. …

[A]s judicial officers, we can and should take steps to help reduce incivility, including gender-based incivility. One method is by calling gendered incivility out for what it is and insisting it not be repeated.

— Associate Justice Brian Currey of California’s Second District Court of Appeal, with Associate Justices Thomas Willhite Jr. and Audrey Collins concurring, in an opinion calling out courtroom sexism and sexism in the legal profession at large after an attorney referred to now-Associate Justice Gail Ruderman Feuer, who was a Los Angeles Superior Court judge at the time, as “an attractive, hard-working, brilliant, young, politically well-connected judge on a fast track for the California Supreme Court or Federal Bench” in his brief. While the attorney in question claimed he was attempting to compliment the judge, the court concluded that his comments “reflect[ed] gender bias and disrespect for the judicial system” nonetheless.

(Flip to the next page to read the opinion in full.)

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

No matter how you look at it, getting called in for a job interview is no small feat. After all, you’ve literally beat out hundreds (maybe even thousands) of qualified candidates. You’ve demonstrated that you have what it takes to make it to the next (and hopefully) hiring stage. However, if you really want to ace your interview and impress your interviewers, you’ll need more than incredible qualifications, a firm handshake, the perfect outfit, and a healthy dose of confidence. You’ll also need to know about the law firm, what sets you apart from the competition, how to answer questions confidently, and ask them as well. After all, getting an offer includes all of the above and asking relevant questions that demonstrate your intelligence and desire to work at the firm. Now, before you feel panicky, overwhelmed, and stressed, we’re here to tell you that it is not hard to ask poignant questions and impress your interviewer. In fact, if you take our advice and ask these 11 questions, you’ll avoid the age-old silence and awkwardness that comes when most interviewers ask, “Do you have any questions for us?”

What type of cases and deals are distributed to new associates?

This question displays initiative and demonstrates that you are interested in the firm’s workflow. It demonstrates that you are passionate about the legal field, various areas of law, the complexity of cases, and the level of authority you might be given as an associate. It will also help you decipher the type of cases or transactions that you will be required to handle on a daily basis. Listen carefully to the interviewer’s answers to determine if the work sounds exciting, challenging, or mundane.

What kind of tasks do new associates typically handle?

This is a spin-off question to the previous one and is important because when you’re just starting out, you may have high hopes of arguing and being involved in high-profile cases. However, as a new associate, this may or may not be a realistic expectation, especially if you’ve recently graduated and have little or no practical experience. In fact, many large firms hire new associates so that they can receive on-the-job-training because they understand that they haven’t yet developed the lawyering skills necessary to be a successful attorney. Therefore, many larger firms pair new associates with more experienced ones, and the new associates mostly conduct legal research or writing, and assist in trial preparation and other mundane tasks.

In contrast, when you work with a medium or larger firm, you may have to wear many hats. For instance, you may conduct legal research, write briefs, engage in eDiscovery, and argue cases. By asking detailed questions about what might be expected of you at the particular firm you’re interviewing with, you’ll have a clearer understanding of what will be expected of you. And if you are offered and accept the position, you’ll go in with your eyes wide open and will know firsthand whether this firm is in alignment with your overall goals as to the tasks that you’re comfortable working on.

What makes this firm stand apart from others?

Although you should conduct independent research on the firm to determine the overall work culture, you still want to gather as much information as possible on the culture, benefits, and perks of working here. That is, you want to see how this firm is unique in comparison to others. For instance, does this firm have a reputation for providing its associates with a sound work-life balance? Do they offer an onsite gym or access to an offsite one, private health care, or even pet insurance? By understanding what sets the firm apart, you can decide if it is the best firm for you.

How do you consider the firm will grow in the next five years? What are the biggest hurdles currently facing this firm?

These questions demonstrate your genuine concern about the company’s future. Knowing about the organization’s future plans for projected growth and any hurdles will help you discern their overall stability. It will also help you decipher any problems. Of course, all firms have challenges, both big and small, but if you plan on working for the firm long term, you’ll want to ensure that it is a stable one before you take the position.

Could you explain the firm’s hierarchical structure?

It is important to understand the hierarchical structure of the firm or chain of command. This way, you’ll have a better understanding of the superior and subordinate levels of the firm. For instance, how many partners work at the firm? How many associates? What are the firm’s main practice areas? How are cases distributed amongst associates and partners? By understanding the managerial structure of the firm, you’ll have a better idea of how you might fit in as a newbie, as well as who has the power and how the firm is organized from a leadership standpoint. This knowledge will help you understand how the firm functions and to whom you will have to answer.

Will I frequently work with the same partners or be assigned to cases with different partners?

This question will help you ascertain how casework is distributed, with whom you’ll work, the type of assistance you might receive, and the type of tasks that you might be given. By understanding whether you’ll work with a particular partner or several, you’ll better be able to gauge how your communication style fits.

What type of associate is likely to succeed here?

Although you may get a generalized response from your interviewer, this is a great question to ask. You see, this question provides insider information about the traits, skills, or qualities that the firm values. It helps you determine whether you have those specific traits and what will be expected of you. For instance, if this firm values someone with a strong work ethic who can put in lots of overtime and you’re available to do this, you’ll be more likely to succeed. On the other hand, if you have a family and need to limit your work hours, then working in a firm that doesn’t require such overtime might be best.

How often will my performance be evaluated?

Constructive criticism can help you improve and make you a better attorney. Understanding how criticism is administered and how often you’ll be evaluated and by whom will help you prepare for performance reviews. It will also help you understand the law firm’s overall expectations so you can exceed those expectations.

What has been your experience working here? 

Although everyone’s experience is different, it definitely can’t hurt to learn about other people’s experiences while they’re employed at the firm. By asking about the interviewer’s experience, you’ll get an in-depth look at the overall work culture. You’ll be able to determine if it is a creative, task-oriented, cooperative, power-driven, or competitive work environment. You can determine whether your personality and work style will be a good match for the firm.

How did you become interested in your practice area?

Another great question is to ask the interviewer how they became interested in their practice area. This question demonstrates that you are an inquisitive candidate who is interested in the interviewer and other colleagues. By asking questions to get to know others better, you demonstrate that you are a team player and are someone who has exceptional communication skills. The interviewer will feel respected that you want to know more about them. Additionally, this question will help establish rapport and will help you get a feel for the type of associates who work at the firm as well as their likes, dislikes, and interests.

What kinds of nonprofit assignments (if any) does the firm ask associates to handle?

As you know, many bar associations require that lawyers engage in pro bono work or “free legal services for the good of the people.” If you’re someone who wants to meet this requirement or are interested in giving back to the community, you are probably searching for opportunities to engage in pro bono work. One great way to do this is to use your lawyering skills to help others in need. Therefore, finding a law firm that encourages (or, at the very least, supports) your pro bono efforts should be a priority for you. Therefore, if this is important to you, don’t be shy. Ask the interviewer if the firm looks favorably upon pro bono projects. Ask if they encourage associates to do more than 50+ hours of pro bono cases a year. This is important because if they don’t have a pro bono requirement or do not seem to care about this work, and it’s important to you, you may want to seek a firm that is more concerned with serving the community.

In conclusion, acing an interview is more than simply looking fresh and being confident about your skills and qualifications. It is about showing interest in the firm. By asking the right questions, you get insider information about the firm and cleverly demonstrate that you are well suited for the position. You showcase your enthusiasm and personality and do some essential investigative work to determine if the firm is right for you. After all, it’s just as important (maybe even more important) that you feel comfortable working for the firm as they feel comfortable hiring you to work for them.

---

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.

It’s cliché to say that the addition of every new justice should be considered the beginning of a whole new Supreme Court. But with Kavanaugh’s controversial arrival on the bench, there’s reason to believe the Roberts Court really did become something fundamentally different. Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern joins the show to discuss his new book American Justice 2019: The Roberts Court Arrives, tracking the chief justice as he navigates “the political fray without abandoning his conservative instincts.”

Special thanks to our sponsor, Logikcull.

High-profile litigation boutique seeks associate (1-3 years or more of litigation experience) to help manage complex commercial, qui tam,  and white collar cases. The firm presently has cases in federal and state court nationwide. The firm seeks a candidate with excellent credentials: federal judicial clerkship preferred.  Only candidates ready to take full responsibility for cases, including depositions, drafting, and trial work, need apply. We also value community service and the work that we do through our pro bono program. In our pro bono program the associate will handle the case through jury trial, getting experience picking a jury, making arguments, and examining witnesses, all under the supervision of partner.

To be considered, please apply to this posting or submit your resume to jandrophy@bafirm.com.

When it comes to getting President Donald Trump’s prized tax returns, some states are taking matters into their own hands. But the task is proving to be quite a challenge.

The California Supreme Court struck down Senate Bill 27, a bill passed and signed into law last summer which required all presidential candidates to submit their tax returns for the past five years to the California Secretary of State, after which the returns will be made public. This law was passed in response to President Trump’s refusal to publicly release his tax returns as prior candidates have done. It was to go into effect in time for the 2020 California primaries.

The decision to invalidate the law was based on state law. Article 2, Section 5(c) of the California Constitution states that the Legislature must provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, including an open presidential primary which includes those the California Secretary of State determines to be recognized candidates throughout the nation (emphasis added).

The court reasoned that the law requiring the disclosure of tax returns would conflict with Section 5(c) of the California Constitution which was designed to prevent the Legislature from favoring “favorite son” candidates. Otherwise, the Legislature could make it difficult for Californians to vote for nationally popular or “recognized candidates” that the Legislature does not like.

This is not the first time that the California Legislature failed to pass a law forcing President Trump to make his tax returns public. A prior version of the tax return disclosure law was vetoed by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 2017. He was concerned that the law would allow the Legislature to demand all kinds of requirements and disclosures as a condition to appearing on the presidential ballot. This would in effect prevent popular candidates from appearing on the presidential ballot if the Legislature does not approve.

The California Supreme Court also addressed the potential slippery slope. During oral argument on the constitutionality of the tax return disclosure requirement, several skeptical justices asked what information about a candidate should and should not be disclosed as a condition to being allowed to campaign for president in California.

Since the decision was based solely on state law, it did not address whether requiring presidential candidates to disclose tax returns in order to be placed on the state ballot violates the U.S. Constitution.

The justices of the California Supreme Court likely know that President Trump will not get any of California’s electoral votes in the 2020 presidential elections, and so their decision focused on the bigger picture, including the potential for a slippery slope as mentioned during oral arguments.

Other blue states that want to pass a similar law with the “real” purpose of forcing President Trump to disclose his tax returns should think about the unintended consequences. Some people might have legitimate reasons for not wanting to disclose where their income comes from or what deductions they take.

Also, thanks to the internet, even if one state can pass a law that forces presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to be on the state ballot, it will effectively make the tax return available to everyone. So in the end, Congress will have to legislate on this issue. If Congress doesn’t act on the matter, the federal courts will have to decide whether the qualification clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 should solely determine who is eligible to run for president.

---

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Most recent of which was the removal of subsidies on most basic staple commodities, resulting in exorbitant and unaffordable prices – the minister of health has thrown yet another bombshell in a myriad of bizarre decisions…medical doctors, who have been incapacitated for the past three months, would be given small Honda Fit vehicles as incentives.

I honestly could not believe my ears when I was listening to the minister’s announcement – made with a confident and proud straight face during this week’s post-cabinet meeting press briefing. I had to make sure that I listened to the news footage over and over again until it eventually sunk in. This was not some ludicrous dream, as indeed, the government of the Republic of Zimbabwe – with its plethora of PhDs and professors  – had sat down and resolved that the country’s medical doctors deserved to drive in cars – commonly known as ‘mushikashika’ – synonymous with pirate commuter taxis!

This is the same government that would not hesitate blowing US$16 million on luxury vehicles for its own cabinet ministers – the same ministers who decided that doctors ought to move around in cars only fit (no pan intended) for teenage joyriding. Quite frankly, considering how this government has ruined the lives of ordinary citizens, it is the cabinet ministers themselves who deserved to drive around in Honda Fit cars – as our medical doctors, teachers and nurses are worth far much more to the nation.

These shenanigans come in the wake of the Zimbabwean authorities adamantly and callously refusing to adjust wages of these gallant men and women, in tandem with the ever-escalating cost of living, in an economy that is in a freefall, with an annual inflation of over 400% – whereby a civil servant will now be expected to fork out about a quarter of his or her monthly salary just to purchase a 50 kilogram bag of mealie meal – as the lowest paid doctor earns an equivalent of a paltry US$80.

Of course, these civil servants would additionally need to pay for accommodation rentals, electricity, water, children’s school fees (some boarding schools already demanding over ZW$3,000 per pupil per term), and – as no one can survive on mealie meal alone – other basic food stuff.

Nonetheless, instead of engaging them in meaningful and serious negotiations, those in power found it – in ‘wisdom’ and ‘sage’ only found in Zimbabwe – to rather fire over 400 doctors, during ongoing disciplinary hearings, who had been understandably failing to report for duty since September 3 this year, due to their incapacitation as a result of pathetic salaries that can not even cater for a week’s public transport fares.

Furthermore, senior specialist doctors, who have been strenuously holding the fort, have commendably also downed their tools in solidarity with their abused and mistreated colleagues.

It is also widely reported that a large number of our doctors have already started emigrating to seek employment in foreign countries where their services are well-respected and appreciated.

In the face of an already dilapidated public health care system – characterized by a gross shortage of medical personnel, medications and essential equipment – one would have expected the government to, at least, have treated these men and women – whose sacrifice to the medical needs of the suffering masses is unquestionable and unparalleled – with the respect and dignity that they so richly deserve.

There is no denying that the ever-impoverished people of Zimbabwe have benefited immensely more from our doctors, nurses and teachers – who have given all they could to their calling, in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges – as opposed to those in power, whose only hallmark has been institutionalized and unfettered corruption, inconsistent and incoherent economic policies, and a brutal human rights record.

An authoritarian leadership that would not care less even if our health care institutions were left without a single doctor or nurse, as they themselves receive their medical attention in foreign lands, such as South Africa, Singapore, and China, all at tax payers’ expense.

This nation can do very well without all those in high offices – who have actually deteriorated our standards of livelihood – but, certainly can not survive without our doctors, nurses and teachers.

Therefore, if anything, instead of wasting so many millions upon millions of dollars on worthless pleasures – such as, the chartering of exorbitant private jets for the president, expensive useless anti-sanctions marches, a pre-budget seminar that achieved zilch, and so much more looted from public funds, as the National Social Security Authority (NSSA), Command Agriculture, and our natural resources  – the government could offer these amounts to our civil servants.

In fact, based on the US$16 million to be splashed on luxury cars for cabinet minsters, 1000 doctors could earn US$1,300 per month for a whole year.

Considering that what our doctors, nurses and teachers earn is actually citizens’ money – as tax payers – we, the people of Zimbabwe demand that it be awarded to these most valuable men and women. The government has no right, and can never deny us that right, for us to determine what our hard-earned money should be used for…and who it should be given to.

We never signed up for our money to charter private jets from Dubai, neither have we ever sanctioned it to treat those who clearly would not give a hoot whether we die or not – due to lack of adequate medical care – to seek their own expensive treatment in foreign lands.

Our doctors, nurses and teachers are the only ones who genuinely care for us, and have our best interests at heart, and thus, they deserve what our tax money can buy. They should not be reduced to driving ‘mushikashika’, neither should they be lodging in some backyard cottages – but, more than anyone else, be granted the dignity and prestige that their commendable work is worthy.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice activist, writer, author, and speaker. Please feel free to WhatsApp/call: +263733399640, or +263715667700, or calls only: +263782283975, or email: [email protected]

Post published in: Featured

White media is full of advice articles today about handling your racist family members over Thanksgiving. Oh, they don’t call them your “racist” family members, because the underlying goal of these advice columns is to confirm your bias that your own family isn’t a dangerous and stupid part of the problem. Even the columns that acknowledge that some people in your family will be unreachable Nazis are designed to make you okay with that so you can choke down your turkey in peace. “Sure, Uncle Bob is a virulent racist, but it’s totally cool to expose your kids to his retrograde worldview as long as you keep him talking about football game.”

It’s bulls**t. You wouldn’t leave your kids alone with Uncle Bob if he was a pedophile, but you’ll let him wax poetic about the dangers of Colin Kaepernick.

True “white allies” are not having dinner with racist people this Thursday. They’ve made the hard choices to cut these MAGA assholes out of their lives, at personal cost, because they understand that breaking bread with racists is part of the legitimizing process that has put these people in power. You people who are eating with Trump supporters “because Mom would be so hurt if I didn’t show up” are full of s**t, and all you want is for somebody to tell you that your hypocrisy and weakness is acceptable. No, you’re not part of the lynch mob, you’re the asshole who leaves the light on so the mobbers can find their way home when they’re done.

Unlike your white friends at the New York Times, I am not here to coddle you. But I am willing to share some “best practices” if you want to be able to look your non-white friends in the eye after you’ve finished placating the people who you are related to who try to oppress them. I can’t tell you how to change the minds of your racist relations, but I can tell you how to not be a part of the problem.

1. YOU BLITZ EVERY DOWN.

The last two years, since Trump was elected, I have been amazed by the number of left-leaning white friends I have who are willingly going to Thanksgiving with their Trump supporting family, whose stated goals are to escape the event “without conflict.” Are you freaking kidding me? Like, I don’t make a habit of going to white supremacist rallies at the Federalist Society… but when I do, I AM LOOKING FOR CONFLICT. “Conflict” is the only way to make these people understand that they suck and you will not be counted among them. If you wanted to eat dinner in peace, you shouldn’t have sat at the table with somebody who is cool with putting children in cages to “own the libs.”

YOU MUST CONFLICT WITH THESE PEOPLE. Every time. About everything. It’s exhausting and unpleasant, and it’s what you signed up for.

It’s NOT OKAY that the President lies all the time. It’s not okay that he disregards the rule of law. It’s not okay that he demonizes non-white immigrants. It’s not okay that he and his party engage in voter suppression. It’s not okay that he appoints racists and Anti-Semites and wife-beaters to key positions. It’s not okay that he sexually assaults women. It’s not okay that he appointed a Supreme Court justice who lied repeatedly under oath and has been credibly accused of sexual assault by multiple women. It’s not okay that he collaborated with Russians to influence the election. It’s not okay that he threatens our allies. It’s not okay that he’s corrupt and uses the Presidency to profit himself and his family. IT’S NOT OKAY THAT HE DOESN’T READ.

Every. Single. Time. You have to be there to say “it’s not okay.” Even if that’s all you say. Never, ever let these assholes pretend for a second that anything happening is normal or positive, without your verbal disagreement. GET YOUR OBJECTION ON THE RECORD. It takes a lot AND is also the very least you can do.

2. DO NOT ACCEPT WHATABOUTISM, FALSE EQUIVALENCY, OR ANY OTHER STUPID FOX NEWS TRICK.

“What about Hillary Clinton?” “What about Barack Obama?” “What about Al Franken?” “Both parties.” “Both sides.” “I agree that the caravan is being oversold as a danger, but what is the Democrats’ plan for stopping it?” “Isn’t that time you illegally downloaded a song just like Saudi Arabia murdering and dismembering a journalist?”

I find that people have trouble with whataboutism and InfoWars tropes when it is thrown at them by family members. I think it’s because the “right” answer to these types of questions is “you’re a f***ing idiot and you need to get out of my face or I’m going to hurt you.” These questions are like allergies: they’re a minor annoyance but your only choices are a massive coughing/sneezing/suffocating overreaction, OR you just quietly sit there while mucus flows out of your eyes and nose.

GO WITH THE OVERREACTION.

Remember, whataboutism is the MAGA defense mechanism. It’s their argument when they have no other argument to defend their Führer. IT IS A SIGN OF THEIR WEAKNESS, not yours. And thus, it is an invitation for you to press the attack (see above on why you should be in attack mode).

Dad: Hillary Clinton was also corrupt.
You: What the fuck did you say?
Mom: Language.
You: No, NO FUCK BOTH OF YOU. HILLARY CLINTON ISN’T THE GODDAMN PRESIDENT. Your guy is. WHERE IN THE HELL DO YOU GET OFF excusing any of these actual instances of corruption, just because of what you think somebody else would have done? That’s not an argument, that’s a clown statement designed to trigger me. WELL I’M TRIGGERED. What’s your plan now? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING RELEVANT TO SAY IN DEFENSE OF THE TRUMP FAMILY, or is weak bullshit all you’ve got?
Dad: I notice you didn’t defend Clinton.
You: I NOTICE YOU CAN’T DEFEND YOUR OWNSELF. It must be hard for you when Sean Hannity isn’t here to tell you what to say.

If you ever find yourself defending Democrats who are not in office instead of attacking Republicans who are in office, you are doing it wrong.

3. CALL OUT THE RACISM BY NAME.

Practice saying this in the mirror: “That’s racist.” Get comfortable with that word, “racist.” If you are going to one of these MAGA-givings, you are going to hear a lot of racism. But you’ve been socialized not to call your own family racist to their faces. So your gut reaction will be to explain away racism as something else.

It’s not something else. It’s freaking racism. That’s why your family voted for Trump. THERE ARE STUDIES THAT PROVE THIS POINT.

Your family is racist. If you can’t tell yourself that in the mirror, you can’t tell it to them. And if you can’t tell it to them, then you legitimize their racism as something more socially acceptable.

Your job, as a would-be ally, is not to assuage your family’s racism, it’s to confront it. And you can’t do that if you are too weak to call it by its name.

4. NON-POLITICAL TOPICS ARE ALSO POLITICAL.

If you have followed the first three steps, your family should eventually look for other topics to talk about. This is a small victory. Following the first three steps has at least alerted your family that you are not to be f**ked with and will give no quarter to their Trumpy ways. Congratulations.

But your work is not over. Your family is not racist because they support Trump. Your family supports Trump because they are racist. It’s the so-called “non” political conversations where their animus and implicit biases shine through.

If you have children, this is also the most dangerous time for them. The kids can’t understand how a desire to ethnically cleanse the country of brown people is effectuated by overturning birthright citizenship status. That’s over their wee heads. But they can certainly understand that white quarterbacks are “tough” and “hardworking” and “play the game the right way,” while black wide receivers are “athletic” and “all about me” and “showboat.”

If you are going to be a white ally, you need to fight against these subtle forms of prejudice and implicit bias, all damn weekend. Racism is learned. This is how children learn it. You have to combat your family’s racism, for them, whenever it’s on display.

I can’t know how the racism metastasizes in your particular family, but here are some statements you should be ready to make as needed:

“No, black people are not faster. If sports were one of the only ways for white people to escape structural poverty, you’d see a lot more fast white people getting concussed for your enjoyment.”
“Actually, cops shoot black people and white people at about the same rate once they stop them. The problem is that cops disproportionately stop black people for no reason.”
“Mom, if you call the cops on that black guy who is just sitting there, I’m never speaking to you again.”
“Jews are not better with money. That is a bigoted stereotype that comes from Christian Europe where Jews were employed as money-lenders because of the Catholic church’s old laws against usury.”
“Google ‘usury,’ you freaking idiot.”
“At the point where aliens are ripping holes in inter-dimensional space, your argument that only white people could be in this movie to maintain ‘historical accuracy’ becomes ludicrous.”
“Raisins do not belong in potato salad.”

You take my point. The fighting doesn’t end just because Grandpa finally turns off Fox News.

5. NEVER DO THIS AGAIN.

How can you convince your family not to be racist? I don’t know. If I did, I’d be President of the White Liberals. I know you should be trying to teach your children not to be racist, and I know that if you were really committed to that project, you wouldn’t place your children in the clutches of your racist family. But you’re there at Thanksgiving so you’ve clearly decided to go in a different direction.

But if you’ve confronted your white family all through Thanksgiving weekend, and you feel exhausted by the effort, maybe think better of going home for Christmas?

Nobody said allyship was easy. It’s hard. If it’s too hard for you, I understand. These past two years have taught me to expect the very least from white Americans. But I’m thankful for the vanishingly few of you that have the strength and stamina for this fight. You know who you are.

Happy Thanksgiving.

---

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

It’s that time of year when we have the same discussions we had last year:

1. What’s the best way to cook a turkey for Thanksgiving?
2. Didn’t the holiday decorations for December come out earlier this year?
3. What’s the most important advice to give to students studying for finals?

The answers to the first two questions appear at the end of this post.  The answer to the third question is: Don’t be your own worst enemy.  That answer requires some explanation.

I’ve written before about being your own worst enemy during finals.  Previously, the focus of my post was on patience.   Today it is about the negative self-talk I frequently hear from students during this time of year (and again in May).

Negative self-talk is damaging to your studying.  It is like climbing a mountain with a 50-pound weight on your ankle.  It kills your productivity and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Here’s how: Studies show that if you engage in negative self-talk, you’re more likely to be stressed and more likely to have lower self-esteem.  You are, in effect, setting yourself up for failure.  The more you tell yourself you can’t do something, the more likely you are to try to prove yourself right.

Don’t believe me?  Ask Luke Skywalker.  Luke’s attempt to use the Force to lift his X-Wing fighter out of the marsh on Dagobah in “The Empire Strikes Back” is perhaps the most famous example of negative self-talk.  Luke is convinced he cannot lift the fighter.  Yoda scolds him.  “Always with you it cannot be done.”  Master Yoda is pointing out the terrible habit Luke has set upon himself.  Starting from the position that something cannot be done assures you cannot do it.

Luke says, “I’ll give it a try.”  Yoda replies, “No.  Try not.  Do.  Or do not.  There is no try.” Yoda is telling Luke to visualize success.  “Try” is a halfway house wherein there is doubt as to ability.  Visualizing success actually helps achieve it.  There’s science behind this.

Luke fails, and Yoda shows that he can lift the ship up.  Luke says, “I don’t believe it.” Yoda replies, “That is why you fail.”  Luke was catastrophizing, as he was prone to do.  The effects of doing so as you study is to render your studying meaningless.  “I’ll never learn this stuff!”  “I’m going to fail!”  “I’m so screwed!”  Yep, you are.  And the reason is that you are trying to study with increased stress, more self-doubt, a more closed mind, and in a state in which you are not open to information.

Over time, repeatedly engaging in negative self-talk that can lead to feelings of depression and despair.  Attempting to study with those feelings is like climbing a mountain with a 500-pound weight on your ankle.  That is the cycle of negative self-talk: It feeds itself, and the thing it is feeding on is your self-esteem.  The more you engage in the behavior, the heavier the weight around your ankle.

There are many ways to pause the negative self-talk, and, over time, to minimize it.  But that takes mental training and practice.  Until then, you can deploy some techniques as you study:

1. Reframing. Reframing means taking the negative self-talk and turning it into something positive.  There are some examples here.  Instead of saying “I’m going to fail” reframe to “I’m going to succeed.”   Or, “I’m going to win.”
2. Stop it! When you catch yourself engaged in negative self-talk, tell yourself to stop.  Say it aloud.  And then reframe.  This helps you avoid focusing on the negative.  Often times we can spend a good deal of time focusing and feeding our fears and catastrophizing.
3. Clear your mind. Many people advocate meditation. I have become one of them, as I’ve started to engage in the practice more frequently.  It is a way to bring your mind calm, and be centered.  Even if you don’t meditate, a few moments of exercise, changing scenery, or just breathing can help you emerge from the negative self-talk.  (The most hilarious self-talk I’ve engaged in was “I can’t sit still long enough to meditate.”)
4. Check in with a true friend. Sometimes talking to someone who wants you to win can help you reframe.  Often times, we dismiss these friends because they couldn’t possibly know what we’re going through (even if they have gone through it themselves).  But, a true friend will help us see ourselves through their eyes, and not through our own distorted view.  But make sure it is a true friend, not someone who will join in the negative self-talk.
5. Be your own best friend.  The question you should ask yourself is: “What would you tell your best friend if they were in your situation?”  The answer is never: “You’re going to fail!  You’re screwed!  You might as well drop out of law school!”  The answer is never that, because you treat your best friends with compassion and kindness.  Start doing that with yourself as well.

Good luck on your finals.  You got this.

Answers to the First Two Questions:

1. There is no good way to cook a turkey. It’s going to be dry.  Here’s my argument.
2. I saw my first store Christmas tree in September.

---

LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg) or Facebook. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.