Category: News Feeds

Healthcare
leaders
are
finally
starting
to
take
cybersecurity
off
the
back
burner,
with
most
provider
and
payer
organizations

ramping
up
their
spending
in
this
area
in
the
midst
of
proliferating
cyberattacks.

During
a
panel
discussion
held
Wednesday
at

MedCity
News’

INVEST
Digital
Health
conference
in
Dallas,
healthcare
leaders
shared
their
insight
on
what
needs
to
change
in
order
to
improve
the
industry’s
defense
posture
and
resilience
to
increasing
threats.

There
needs
to
be
an
organization-wide
culture
of
awareness

When
it
comes
to
cybersecurity,
a
company
is
often
only
as
strong
as
its
weakest
link,
pointed
out
Andrew
Molosky,
CEO
of
Tampa-based

Chapters
Health
System
as
well
as
its
subsidiary

CareNu,
which
focuses
on
value-based
care
in
the
Medicare
Advantage
space.

One
employee
opening
a
phishing
email
could
be
all
it
takes
for
a
cybersecurity
disaster
to
strike,
so
healthcare
organizations
must
build
a
culture
of
cybersecurity
awareness
among
all
employees,
he
said.

“We
have
clinical
protocols,
financial
protocols
and
technological
protocols
for
all
our
environments.
If
you
have
the
notion
that
for
some
reason
cybersecurity
is
a
task,
or
that
it’s
just
a
department,
or
that
it’s
somebody
else’s
problem
—
you’re
already
off
to
a
bad
start,”
Molosky
declared.
“When
everybody
wearing
a
name
badge
for
the
organization
in
any
capacity
recognizes
this
as
being
just
as
critical
as
the
procedures
or
as
the
pharmaceuticals
or
as
any
other
component
of
the
medical
delivery,
then
all
of
a
sudden
you
have
an
actual
cultural
awareness.” 

In
order
to
improve
their
defense
posture,
healthcare
organizations
need
to
make
sure
that
all
employees
have
at
least
basic
cybersecurity
training,
he
noted.
In
his
view,
cybersecurity
can’t
be
viewed
as
a
specialized
practice
—
it
must
be
a
core
consideration
in
the
organization’s
daily
operations.

New
tech
must
be
built
with
a
high
regard
for
cybersecurity

Healthcare
organizations
are
adopting
new
technologies
at
a
rapid
rate
—
a
report
released
this
week
by
Bain
&
Company
and
KLAS
Research

showed
that
three-quarters
of
the
nation’s
providers
and
payers
say
they
have
increased
their
tech
and
IT
spending
over
the
past
year.

With
all
this
new
technology
also
comes
additional
risks,
noted
John
Mowery,
chief
information
security
officer
at

Houston
Methodist. 

“We
can’t
manage
the
deluge
of
the
innovation
that’s
coming
in,
nor
the
immaturity
of
the
security
of
those
[tools].
That’s
a
tidal
wave
that
we
can’t
manage,”
he
declared.

As
new
solutions
continue
to
enter
the
market,
the
industry
needs
to
come
together
to
ensure
these
tools
are
being
built
with
a
security-first
mindset,
Mowery
said.

He
also
noted
that
it’s
important
for
hospital
leaders
to
stay
engaged
with
their
innovation
ecosystem
and
try
to
be
aware
of
all
new
technologies
that
are
being
deployed
within
the
organization.

Oftentimes,
a
new
tool
will
be
introduced
in
a
physician
network
or
specialty
group,
and
then
the
hospital’s
cybersecurity
leaders
won’t
find
out
about
it
until
it’s
nearly
installed,
he
said.

“That
creates
challenges
and
risk
for
the
organization,
but
also
it
increases
the
burden
on
us,
because
we
now
have
to
go
figure
out
how
to
remediate
all
of
that
risk,”
Mowery
explained.

Maybe
healthcare
needs
some
more
cybersecurity
leaders
from
outside
the
industry

Healthcare
organizations
looking
to
build
out
their
cybersecurity
programs
should
look
for
leaders
with
a
diversity
of
experience,
recommended
Ben
Schwering,
chief
information
security
officer
at

Premier.

“A
lot
of
times
when
I
talk
to
healthcare
organizations,
or
I
see
job
postings
for
security
leaders
or
engineers,
I’ll
always
see
‘must
have
10+
years
in
healthcare’
or
‘must
have
25
years
in
healthcare.’
I
don’t
agree
with
that. 
I’d
much
rather
see
someone
with
some
diverse
experience
come
in
because
they
will
look
at
things
in
a
new
way,”
he
explained.

Leaders
who
come
from
outside
the
healthcare
world
will
often
flag
things
that
might
go
unnoticed
by
people
who
have
been
hyper-focused
on
healthcare
for
their
entire
careers,
Schwering
noted.

Photo:
Nick
Fanion,
Breaking
Media

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
second
article
in
a
series
providing
a
comprehensive
guide
to
networking
at
conferences.

Read
the
first
here. 

Continuing
our
journey
in
“Conquering
Conferences,”
we
now
explore
how
to
handle
the
inevitable
—
rejection.

Just
like
in
a
high
school
dance,
not
every
approach
leads
to
a
successful
interaction.

But
fear
not,
today
we’re
learning
the
art
of
handling
“no”
with
grace
and
preparing
for
the
group
networking
waltz.

Graceful
Strategies
for
Handling
‘No’

In
the
dance
of
conference
networking,
not
every
step
leads
to
a
perfect
rhythm.
Just
as
some
dance
invitations
are
gently
declined
at
a
high
school
prom,
in
the
world
of
networking,
you’ll
sometimes
face
rejection.

It’s
an
inevitable
part
of
the
process,
but
it
doesn’t
have
to
be
an
awkward
misstep.
Handling
rejection
with
grace
and
poise
is
crucial
–
it’s
like
knowing
how
to
smoothly
transition
to
the
next
song
after
a
dance
ends.

Here
are
some
tactful
ways
to
respond
when
someone
isn’t
interested
in
networking,
allowing
you
to
bow
out
of
the
conversation
with
dignity
and
keep
your
networking
dance
card
open
for
the
next
opportunity.

Express
Gratitude
With
Grace:
Sometimes,
a
simple
thank
you
can
be
the
most
elegant
way
to
handle
rejection.
You
could
say,
“Thank
you
for
your
time,
I
hope
you
find
what
you’re
looking
for
at
this
event.
Have
a
great
day!”
This
shows
that
you’re
understanding
and
professional,
even
in
the
face
of
rejection.

Casual
Sign-off:
A
casual
exit
can
be
as
simple
as,
“All
right,
I’ll
let
you
get
on
with
the
event.
Have
a
great
time!”
This
is
a
friendly
and
nonchalant
way
of
excusing
yourself
from
the
conversation.

Express
Good
Wishes:
A
simple
and
effective
response
can
be,
“No
problem
at
all.
I
hope
you
have
a
fantastic
conference!”
This
shows
that
you’re
understanding
and
wish
them
well,
regardless
of
their
interest
in
networking
with
you.

Light-Hearted
Acknowledgment:
If
you
sense
the
conversation
isn’t
going
anywhere,
you
can
say,
“Looks
like
I’m
not
the
networking
partner
you’re
looking
for
—
but
that’s
OK!
Enjoy
the
rest
of
your
time
here.”
This
acknowledges
the
situation
with
a
bit
of
humor
and
shows
that
you’re
not
taking
the
rejection
personally.

The
Group
Networking
Waltz

The
cocktail
party
at
the
conference
is
in
full
swing.
The
room
is
buzzing
with
the
clink
of
glasses
and
the
murmur
of
conversations.

Attendees
are
mingling,
forming
little
islands
of
interaction.
Some
are
laughing
over
shared
anecdotes,
others
are
deep
in
discussion
about
the
day’s
sessions.

It’s
like
a
ballroom
where
each
group
dances
to
its
own
rhythm.

You’ve
navigated
one-on-one
encounters,
but
now
it’s
time
to
step
into
the
more
intricate
dance
of
group
dynamics.

Approaching
a
group
requires
a
slightly
different
approach.

It’s
about
entering
the
conversation
in
a
way
that’s
respectful
of
the
existing
dynamic
while
also
making
your
presence
known.

Think
of
it
like
joining
a
dance
circle
—
you
want
to
be
part
of
the
rhythm,
not
disrupt
it.

1. 
   “Mind
   if
   I
   join
   in?
   I
   overheard
   you
   talking
   about
   [topic]
   and
   would
   love
   to
   hear
   more.”
2. 
   “Excuse
   me.
   I
   couldn’t
   help
   but
   be
   drawn
   to
   this
   lively
   group.
   I’m
   [Your
   Name].”
3. 
   “Hi,
   I’m
   [Your
   Name].
   I’m
   looking
   to
   meet
   new
   people
   and
   learn
   something
   new.
   Mind
   if
   I
   join
   and
   catch
   up
   on
   what
   you’re
   discussing?”
4. 
   “Hey
   there,
   I’m
   [Your
   Name].
   I’m
   on
   a
   mission
   to
   mingle
   today.
   Can
   I
   join
   in?”
5. 
   “Hi,
   I’m
   [Your
   Name].
   I’m
   really
   looking
   forward
   to
   connecting
   with
   new
   people
   and
   hearing
   diverse
   perspectives.
   May
   I
   join
   you
   all?”

Mastering
the
group
dynamics
at
conferences
is
akin
to
joining
a
dance
circle.
The
art
of
networking
is
not
just
about
individual
connections,
but
also
about
harmonizing
with
the
group
rhythm.

In
our
next
article,
we’ll
guide
you
through
the
steps
of
engaging
group
conversations
and
managing
the
“dance
floor
dominator.”

 Handling
‘No’
with
Grace:
A
Recap

✔️ Respond
to
rejections
with
gratitude
and
understanding.
✔️

Keep
the
tone
light
and
polite,
maintaining
professionalism.
✔️ Join
group
conversations
respectfully,
ensuring
you
add
to
the
dynamic
without
overpowering
it.
✔️ Engage
in
the
art
of
group
conversation
by
inviting
diverse
opinions.

---

Sejal Patel is
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
specializing
in
empowering
attorneys
with
innovative
practice
development
strategies.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
applies
her
expertise
in
assisting
clients
convert
their
relationships
into
revenue
by
applying
individualized
strategies
to
their
networks
and
leveraging
their
unique
styles
authentically.  

The
small
town
of
Letcher
County,
Kentucky
has
been
rocked
by
the
shocking
murder
of
District
Judge
Kevin
D.
Mullins.
No
matter
the
perpetrator,
such
violence
would
capture
attention.
But
the
location
of
the
shooting
—
the
judge’s
office
—
and
the
alleged
shooter
—
Letcher
County
Sheriff
Mickey
Stines
—
has
left
folks
just
gobsmacked.

The
Mountain
Eagle

describes
the
shooting,
and
Stines’
apparent
complete
lack
of
artifice
as
he
committed
the
crime
yesterday
afternoon:

Stines
allegedly
walked
into
the
judge’s
outer
office,
told
court
employees
and
others
gathered
there
that
he
needed
to
speak
with
Mullins
alone.
The
two
then
went
into
the
inner
office,
closed
the
door
and
those
outside
heard
shots.
Stines
walked
out
with
his
hands
up
and
surrendered
to
police.

Stines
was

arrested
and
charged
with
first
degree
murder.

As

reported
by
the
Courier
Journal,
Stines
and
Mullins
were
both
involved
in
a
2022
lawsuit
alleging
misconduct
by
a
deputy
sheriff.

In
a
2022
lawsuit
filed
in
U.S.
District
Court
alleging
a
Letcher
County
deputy
sheriff offered
“favorable
treatment
for
sexual
favors,”
Stines
was
listed
as
a
defendant
for
“for
allegedly
failing
to
properly
train”
the
deputy
sheriff,
the Courier
Journal
previously
reported.

The
suit
says
the
abuse
occurred
in
the
chamber
of
Mullins,
but
does
not
say
if
he
was
aware
of
it
or
allege
he
was
involved
in
any
wrongdoing.
The
suit
also
alleged
Stines
did
not
“reasonably
respond”
to
reports
or
suspicions.

Stines
went
on
to
fire
the
deputy
sheriff
for
“conduct
unbecoming,”
the Courier
Journal
previously
reported.

Stines
was
expected
to
provide
testimony
in
a
deposition
in
that
case
on
Monday.

Mullins
was
appointed
to
his
judicial
post
in
2009,
and
was
elected
to
the
position
the
following
year.
He
was
a
graduate
of
the
University
of
Kentucky
and
University
of
Louisville
Louis
D.
Brandeis
School
of
Law.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
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 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

A
Sunday
morning
article
in
the

New
York
Times
begins,

“Last
February,
Chief
Justice
John
G.
Roberts
Jr.
sent
his
eight
Supreme
Court
colleagues
a
confidential
memo
that
radiated
frustration
and
certainty
[referring
to
the
D.C.
Circuit’s
decision
in
the
Donald
Trump
immunity
case].”

The
article
continues
describing
Roberts’
Feb.
22^nd
memo
to
the
justices,

“He
wrote
not
only
that
the
Supreme
Court
should
take
the
case
–
which
would
stall
the
trial
–
but
also
how
the
justices
should
decide
it.”

This
approach
seems
a
far
cry
from
the
role
of
the
judge
the
Chief
described
in
his

confirmation
hearings,
one
where
he
would,

“…be
open
to
the
considered
views
of
my
colleagues
on
the
bench…I
will
remember
that
it’s
my
job
to
call
balls
and
strikes,
and
not
to
pitch
and
catch.”

Later
in
the

Times
article,
describing
the

Fischer
January
6^th
case,
the
authors
relate,

“The
chief
justice
assigned
the
opinion
to
Justice
Alito,
according
to
several
court
insiders. 
But
months
later,
Chief
Justice
Roberts
updated
the
Court:
Justice
Alito
was
no
longer
the
author.”

Then
the
authors
describe,

“Four
days
earlier,
The
Times
had
reported
on
the
upside-down
flag
that
flew
at
the
Alito’s
home
soon
after
the
Jan.
6
insurrection
at
the
capital.”

While
details
like
the
ones
in
the

Timesarticle
very
seldom
become
public
knowledge,
they
point
to
something
both
obvious
and
perhaps
non-obvious:
the
justices
do
not
decide
opinions
in
a
vacuum
of
case
law.
No,
the
justices
bring
feelings,
preconceptions,
and
ideals
(at
very
least)
into
their
decisions.
This
isn’t
the
first
time
such
realities
were
made
public
by
the
justices’
deeds
or
actions.

Several
years
before
Roberts’
nomination,
in
2001,
then
Second
Circuit
Judge
Sonia
Sotomayor
spoke
at
U.C.
Berkeley

saying,

“I
would
hope
that
a
wise
Latina
woman
with
the
richness
of
her
experiences
would
more
often
than
not
reach
a
better
conclusion
than
a
white
male
who
hasn’t
lived
that
life.”

Later,
during
her
confirmation
hearings
in
2009,
Sotomayor
was
forced
to
backtrack
as
she
stated,

“It
is
clear
from
the
attention
that
my
words
have
gotten
and
the
manner
in
which
it
was
understood
by
some
that
my
words
failed…They
didn’t
work.”

Thinking
through
Roberts
statements
and
actions
as
described
in
the

Timesarticle
and
Sotomayor’s
point
about
individual
experience
in
judging
harkens
back
to
legal
principles
articulated
by
Herbert
Wechsler
in
his
seminal
piece
from
1959

Towards
Neutral
Principles
of
Constitutional
Law. 
Wechsler
described,

“I
put
it
to
you
that
the
main
constituent
of
the
judicial
process
is
precisely
that
it
must
be
genuinely
principled,
resting
with
respect
to
every
step
that
is
involved
in
reaching
judgment
on
analysis
and
reasons
quite
transcending
the
immediate
result
is
achieved. 
To
be
sure,
the
courts
decide,
or
should
decide,
only
the
case
they
have
before
them.
But
must
they
not
decide
on
grounds
of
adequate
neutrality
and
generality,
tested
not
only
by
the
instant
application
but
by
others
that
the
principles
imply?
Is
it
not
the
very
essence
of
judicial
method
to
insist
upon
attending
to
such
other
cases,
preferably
those
involving
an
opposing
interest,
in
evaluating
any
principles
avowed.”

Following
Wechsler’s
thought,
the
judge
is
fungible,
the
outcome
should
be
found
by
any
judge
doing
proper
diligence
in
situating
each
case
in
the
relevant
legal
precedent
and
constitutional
or
statutory
context. 
Although
it
has
long
since
become
generally
accepted
that
law
is
not
decided
in
such
a
vacuum,
the
various
mechanisms
that
fuel
judges’
differing
interpretations
of
similar
legal
matters
have
only
become
clearer
over
time.

In
other
works
such
as
Terry
Maroney’s

Judges
and
their
Emotions,
the
idea
of
a
neutral
judge
is
put
under
a
microscope
when
Maroney
writes,

“Emotion
traditionally
has
been
counted
among
the
primary
sources
of
fallibility
and
bias. 
The
task
of
the
legal
system,
under
this
view,
is
to
systematically
reduce
the
opportunities
for
judicial
emotion
to
insert
itself;
the
task
of
the
good
judge
is
to
prevent
emotion
from
exerting
any
influence
wherever
such
opportunities
remain.”

While
this
might
be
an
ideal
picture
of
judging,
it
seems
that
in
reality,
judges,
not
shockingly,
do
respond
to
emotional
stimuli.
Donald,
Rachlinski,
and
Wistrich
have
performed
rigorous
experiments
of
judges
(really
some
of
the
only
near
true
experiments
involving
judges)
and
their
findings
are
telling.

They
wrote,

“…in
our
study
using
the
implicit
association
test,
we
found
that
80
percent
of
white
judges
more
strongly
associated
Black
faces
with
negative
words,
and
white
faces
with
positive
words.” 
Later
on,
they
mention,
“We
also
found
that
judges
sentenced
a
female
criminal
defendant
less
harshly
than
an
identical
male
defendant…the
result
is
still
unequal
treatment
of
identically
situated
defendants.”

One
of
the
interesting
findings
of
the
authors
is
that

“…judges
have
a
difficult
time
accepting
their
weaknesses,
especially
when
it
comes
to
implicit
bias…When
it
comes
[to]
avoiding
racial
bias
in
decision-making,
97
percent
rate
themselves
as
better
than
the
median
judge.”

Even
though
the
present
article
is
only
a
cursory
examination
of
emotions
in
judging,
it
does
dictate
a
potential
ideal
and
a
reality.
While
the
ideal
might
be
of
a
judge
that
applies
the
law
without
regard
to
emotional
stimuli,
based
on
the
text,
possibly
on
a
case’s
implications,
but
devoid
of
personal
feelings
and
emotions,
the
reality
is
much
more
complex.

This
article
sets
out
to
probe
the
reality,
not
through
external
statements
alone,
but
through
the
justices’
judicial
writings. 
At
the
bottom
of
it
all,
this
is
not
necessarily
a
critique
of
the
application
of
emotion
in
judging,
but
merely
to
provide
a
sense
of
the
extent
of
emotion
in
Supreme
Court
decisions,
and
of
the
possible
correlates
of
this
relationship.
The
article
proceeds
by
examining
the
majority
opinions
and
dissents
from
the
2023
Supreme
Court
Term
to
see
the
extent
of
the
emotional
language
in
the
justices’
opinions,
when
it
arises,
and
whether
there
are
disparities
between
the
justices.
The
normative
stakes
of
this
discussion
were
highlighted
above
for
the
sake
of
debate
but
without
regard
to
the
appropriate
approach.
This
article
presents
a
quantitative
analysis
to
hopefully
infuse
more
real-world
substance
from
the
Supreme
Court
into
this
discussion.

Measures

In
the
period
between
2010
and
2020,
several
political
scientists
authored
studies
examining
the
role
of
emotions
in
judging.
The
main
hypothesis
was
that
judges
use
emotionally
charged
language
when
they
implicitly
or
explicitly
disagree
with
a
party’s
argument
or
position.
Thus,
the
articles
proceed
that
judges
(especially
Supreme
Court
Justices)
are
likely
to
vote
against
the
party
when
they
use
more
emotional
language. 
In
one
of
the

first
studies,
Black,
Treul,
and
Johnson
used
the
Dictionary
of
Affect
in
Language
to
measure
oral
argument
speech.
They
posited,
“Our
results
suggest
that
when
the
justices
focus
more
unpleasant
language
toward
one
attorney,
the
side
he
represents
is
more
likely
to
lose.”

In
a

2016
study,
Bryan
and
Ringsmuth
used
the
Linguistic
Inquiry
and
Word
Count
(LIWC)
dictionary
to
measure
emotional
language
in
dissents
and
concluded,
“…our
finding
that
negative
dissents
increase
newspaper
coverage
of
a
case
reinforces
the
conventional
wisdom
that
conflict
enhances
the
newsworthiness
of
an
event…[t]he
results
show
that
individual
justices
are
in
a
position
to
influence
media
coverage
of
a
case.” 
Here
the
authors
find
potential
utility
in
emotional
language,
but
do
not
explore
the
normative
impact
of
emotional
language
on
the
rule
of
law.
Others
including

Corley
and
Ward
also
used
LIWC
to
assess
the
impact
of
relative
emotional
language
in
dissents.

This
article
takes
a
different
approach
by
looking
at
emotional
language
in
both
majority
opinions
and
dissents
and
then
measuring
the
extent
the
justices’
used
this
language
in
opinions
last
term. 
It
uses
the

NRC
Word-Emotion
Association
Lexicon
for
measurement.
The
NRC
Lexicon
measures
anger,
fear,
anticipation,
trust,
surprise,
sadness,
joy,
and
disgust. 
The
dictionary
is
leveraged
through
the
Syuzhet
package
in
R.
Unsigned
decisions
with
no
dissents
including

Trump
v.
Anderson
were
excluded
from
this
analysis.

One
important
item
to
note
is
that
while
it
might
be
surprising
that
many
dissents
have
high
levels
of
“positive”
emotional
words,
this
is
because
words
such
as
“prove,”
“engaged,”
“innocent,”
and
“speedy”
all
fall
under
positive
language.
These
are
all
terms
that
are
used,
for
example,
in
Justice
Jackson’s
dissent
in

Trump
v.
United
States.

Findings

There
are
obvious
differences
between
the
emotional
language
involved
in
particular
cases
and
opinions
although
this
is
not
necessarily
correlated
with
the
extent
of
the
justices’
divisions
in
a
case.
Even
though
the
justices
all
write
majority
opinions
each
term,
they
are
not
assigned
opinions
of
equal
potential
emotional
weight.
As
several
of
the
previous
studies
ascertained
though,
any
justice
can
dissent
in
any
case,
and
therefore
there
is
equal
potential
for
each
justice
to
infuse
emotional
language
in
any
or
all
of
the
Court’s
decisions.

I
analyzed
the
data
both
with
total
emotional
language
counts
and
then
by
normalizing
the
emotional
language
in
each
opinion
based
on
the
opinion
word
counts.
There
are
costs
and
benefits
of
both
approaches.
Total
counts
are
helpful
because
they
give
a
sense
of
the
extent
of
the
emotional
language.
This
is
important
because
a
short
opinion
may
have
a
lot
of
emotional
language
relative
to
the
total
opinion,
but
this
language
may
not
be
large
in
the
aggregate.
Normalization
helps
though
by
showing
the
rate
of
emotional
language
use
rather
than
just
the
total
counts.
This
is
helpful
because
a
justice
might
author
a
long
opinion
with
infrequent
emotional
language
use,
but
due
to
the
opinion
length,
the
total
emotional
word
count
is
substantial.

To
begin,
the
decision
with
the
most
emotional
language,
not
surprisingly,
is

Trump
v.
U.S. 
A
radar
plot
helps
dissect
Chief
Justice
Roberts’
use
of
emotional
language
in
the
majority
opinion:

Here
we
see
based
on
aggregate
counts,
he
has
the
highest
expression
of
fear,
but
also
a
pretty
good
mix
of
other
emotions
including
both
positive
and
negative
language.

When
Roberts’
opinion
language
is
normalized
and
compared
with
the
relative
emotional
language
use
in
the
dissents,
we
see
the
following:

Justice
Jackson
tends
to
use
more
relative
emotional
language
than
the
other
justices
and
Chief
Justice
Roberts
uses
the
least
(if
the
total
numbers
are
used,
the
order
from
most
emotional
language
to
least
is
Roberts,
Sotomayor,
and
then
Jackson). 
This
shows
how
the
picture
changes
when
moving
from
aggregate
count
data
to
normalized
figures.

With
this
in
mind,
we
can
look
at
cases
listed
in
order
of
aggregate
emotional
language
content
based
on
majority
and
dissenting
opinions:

Not
surprisingly,
the
cases
tend
to
be
some
of
the
more
publicly
salient
of
the
term
starting
with

Trump
v.
U.S.
and

Grants
Pass
and
including

Loper
Brightand

Rahimi
in
the
top
five
for
total
emotional
language
content.

The
normalized
case
ranking
looks
different
based
on
the
cases
with
the
highest
rates
of
emotional
language
used:

While

Trump
v.
U.S.
 and

Erlinger
v.
U.S.are
still
at
the
top,
we
see
other
cases
like

Thornell
v.
Jones
and

McIntosh
v.
U.S.also
near
the
top
when
emotional
language
is
normalized
based
on
the
word
counts
of
the
majority
opinions
and
dissents.

Looking
at
the
total
emotional
language
content
(non-normalized)
by
justice
we
get
a
true
sense
of
the
justices
that
used
the
most
emotional
language
last
term.

*

Note:
Roberts’
one
paragraph
dissent
in

Wilkinson
v.
Garland
was
not
included
in
any
of
the
analyses

Justice
Sotomayor
used
the
most
emotional
language
in
her
combined
majority
and
dissenting
opinions
and
Justice
Barrett
used
the
least.
Since
writing
dissenting
opinions
is
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
justices,
I
didn’t
break
this
measure
down
further
based
on
total
number
of
opinions
authored.

This
ordering
looks
somewhat
different
when
the
emotional
language
is
normalized
by
word
counts.

Although
Justice
Sotomayor
stays
on
top
in
both
graphs,
Justices
Jackson,
Barrett,
and
Thomas
all
rise
in
the
ranks
when
the
values
are
normalized.

To
look
a
bit
deeper
into
the
justices’
normalized
values,
the
next
graph
breaks
these
values
down
to
majority
and
separate
opinions:

Justice
Thomas
moves
to
the
front
of
the
majority
opinion
rate
with
Justices
Sotomayor
and
Jackson
trailing
close
behind,
and
Justice
Barrett
moves
to
the
top
of
the
dissent
rate.
Justice
Kagan
stays
towards
the
bottom
in
both
opinion
categories.

Concluding
Thoughts

The
justices
clearly
are
emotional
actors
and
so
Supreme
Court
opinions
are
not
even
nearly
devoid
of
emotional
language.
It
is
also
clear
that
the
justices’
relative
use
of
emotional
language
varies
quite
a
bit,
both
between
cases
and
between
justices. 
This
should
be
a
starting
point
of
any
conversation
both
of
whether
the
justices
add
emotion
into
their
opinions,
and
of
whether
case
law
includes
emotional
language
generally.
The
meaning
of
this
language
use
is
much
more
complex.

While
arguments
for
neutral
principles
might
caution
against
the
use
of
emotional
language,
realists
may
say
that
obfuscating
emotional
language
use
will
only
cloud
the
reality
of
Supreme
Court
decision
making.

The
normative
implications
inspire
a
much
deeper
discussion.
Some
will
argue
that
since
emotional
responses
are
typical
when
people,
even
judges,
respond
to
stimuli.
Others
might
say
that
the
more
emotional
an
opinion,
the
more
possibility
there
is
for
subjective
feelings
to
play
larger
roles,
especially
when
this
comes
at
the
expense
of
limiting
doctrines
including
precedent. 
Emotional
language
may
also
come
in
response
to
subconscious
or
conscious
biases
and
so
they
may
be
hard
to
spot,
even
for
seasoned
judges.

Coming
full
circle,
we
could
probably
have
inferred
the
likelihood
of
emotional
language
in

Trump
v.

U.S.
before
the
decision
was
released
simply
based
on
the
political
overtones
and
stakes
of
the
case.
The

New
York
Times
article
then
added
details
that
underscored
some
of
the
emotions
involved.

---

Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
For
more
information
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.

Have
you
been
missing
patent
trolls
destroying
innovation
and
making
products
you
like
more
expensive?
Have
you
felt
that,
maybe,
some
lawyers
who
did
nothing
but
send
extortionate
shakedown
letters
weren’t
getting
rich
enough?
Well
then,
good
news
for
you,
Congress
is
looking
to
bring
all
that
back!

In
the
early
years
of
Techdirt,
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
patent
trolling,
and
how
terrible,
ridiculous
patents
that
never
should
have
been
granted
were
being
used
as
a
shakedown
mechanism
against
actual
innovators.
Greedy,
shameless
lawyers
would
get
or
buy
extremely
broad
and
vague
patents,
where
there
was
no
intention
to
actually
bring
a
product
to
market,
and
then
they’d
threaten,
extort,
or
otherwise
shakedown,
companies
who
actually
built
successful
products,
often
totally
unrelated
to
the
patents
in
question.

Thankfully,
a
decade
or
so
ago,
the
worst
aspects
of
patent
trolling
were
limited
(though
certainly
not
eliminated).
Changes
to
the
law
made
it
easier
to
challenge
bad
patents,
and
the
Supreme
Court
ran
through
a
series
of
cases
that
made
it
clear
that
terrible
concepts
like
business
models
and
pure
software
were
not
patent-eligible
subject
matter.
Both
have
been
hugely
important.

And
the
Senate
is
looking
to
roll
back
both
of
them.

In
2012,
the
America
Invents
Act
had
some
issues,
but
among
its
good
ideas
was
the
Patent
Trial
and
Appeals
Board
(PTAB),
which
enabled
“Inter
Partes
Review”
(IPR)
of
patents.
This
allowed
anyone
to
challenge
the
validity
of
a
patent
by
showing
prior
art
to
the
PTAB,
allowing
the
PTAB
to
say
that
the
original
patent
examiner
made
a
mistake
and
shouldn’t
have
granted
a
patent.

This
process
has
been
hugely
important
in
stopping
dangerous
and
bad
patents.
In
the
early
2000s, scholars
detailed part
of
the
reason
the
patent
system
was
so
broken
was
the
lack
of
an
antagonistic
process
in
the
granting
of
patents.
You
have
the
party
applying
for
the
patent,
and
then
you
have
the
examiner.
The
examiner
may
challenge
the
applicant
on
certain
points,
but
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
“final”
no
(even
if
there
is
something
called
a
final
rejection),
such
that
the
applicant
can
keep
trying.
And
there’s
no
one
pushing
back
on
the
other
side
and
pointing
out
why
something
doesn’t
deserve
a
20-year
monopoly.

That
resulted
in
plenty
of
patents
that
shouldn’t
have
been
granted
becoming
weapons
of
mass
litigation.
The
IPR
process
allowed
people
to
challenge
these
patents,
to
show
that
the
sole
patent
examiner
who
handled
the
case
got
it
wrong,
and
to
get
rid
of
the
dangerous
and
unnecessary
monopoly.

Patent
trolls
have
long hated the
IPR
system.
They’ve
challenged
it
multiple
times,
but
so
far,
the
concept has
held
up
in
court,
including
the
Supreme
Court.

The
other
major
change
that
helped
stop
terrible
patents
was
the
Supreme
Court
repeatedly
taking
cases
about
people
patenting
things
that
should
never
have
been
patentable,
and
calling
out
the
patent
office
and
the
lower
courts
for
allowing
this
nonsense.
One
of
these
cases,
Alice
v.
CLS
Bank,
from
a
decade
ago,
effectively
said
that software
and
business
models
weren’t
patentable (though
not
as
clearly
as
it
should
have).
This
followed
on
similar
rulings
saying
that medical
diagnostics and genes shouldn’t
be
patentable
either.

But,
of
course,
some
people
in
Congress
love
patents
and
patent
trolling.
Senators
Chris
Coons
(who,
for
years,
worked
for
W.L.
Gore,
a
company
known
for
its
patent
enforcement,
though
which
was
also
on
the
receiving
end
of
many
patent
lawsuits)
and
Thom
Tillis
have
long
been
supporters
of
ever
more
troll-friendly
IP
laws.

They
have
two
bills
that may
get
voted
on
today that
seek
to
wipe
out
all
of
the
good
things
discussed
above.
EFF
has
a
summary
of
each:

The Patent
Eligibility
Restoration
Act (PERA, S.
2140)
would
overturn
Alice,
enabling
patent
trolls
to
extort
small
business
owners
and
even
hobbyists,
just
for
using
common
software
systems
to
express
themselves
or
run
their
businesses.
PERA
would
also
overturn
another
2013
Supreme
Court
case
that
prevents
most
kinds
of
patenting
of
human
genes.

Meanwhile,
the PREVAIL
Act (S.
2220)
seeks
to
severely
limit
how
the
public
can
challenge
bad
patents
at
the
patent
office.
Challenges
like
these
are
one
of
the
most
effective
ways
to
throw
out
patents
that
never
should
have
been
granted
in
the
first
place. 

Both
of
these
would
be
horrific
for
the
future
of
innovation
and
would
bring
back
into
the
foreground
more
patent
trolling
shakedowns
over
completely
bogus
patents
that
never
should
have
been
granted.
It
would
literally
set
innovation
back
a
decade.
And
for
what?
To
help
a
few
lawyers
shakedown
more
innovators?
Who
wants
that
other
than
the
patent
trolls?

Over
the
last
decade,
patent
trolling
hasn’t
gone
completely
away,
but
it
has
become
less
of
an
existential
threat
for
innovators
than
it
was
for
the
first
ten
to
fifteen
years
of
the
2000s.
These
two
bills
would
destroy
that
and
bring
us
back
to
an
era
of
less
innovation
and
more
shakedowns.

The EFF
link has
ways
to
contact
your
senators
to
vote
against
these
bills,
and
I
hope
that
many
of
you
will
do
so.

Congress
Poised
To
Bring
Back
Unfettered
Patent
Trolling

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

DC
Appeals
Court
To
Cop:
Yeah,
It’s
Obstruction
To
Delete
Messages
Telling
Capitol
Rioters
To
Delete
Evidence
Of
Crimes

Nintendo,
Pokémon
Co.
Sue
Pocketpair
Over
‘Palworld’
For…
Patent
Infringement?

SB
1047:
California’s
Recipe
For
AI
Stagnation

*
Paul
Weiss
offers
professional
attire
stipend
to
vacation
scheme
interns.
It
would
be
better
if
they’d
hired
Nina
Garcia
and
the
Twitter
Workwear
Guy
as
consultants
but
this
is
a
start.
[LegalCheek]

*
For
the
Civil
Procedure
buffs,
hot
minimum
contacts
precedent
just
dropped.
[Reuters]

*
Law
professor
who

admits
to
sleeping
with
1Ls
can’t
block
the
Title
IX
investigation.
[Law360]

*
Right
as
yesterday’s
crazy
news
day
came
to
a
close,
newly
filed
court
documents
say
Matt
Gaetz
took
a
high
school
junior
to
a
coke-filled
sex
party.
[Mediaite]

*
Dentons
being
looked
at
in
connection
with
South
Africa
corruption
probe.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
Interesting
story
about
rising
the
Biglaw
ranks
with
a
stutter.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Robot
Picasso
still
has
no
rights.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

Above The Law In your inbox

Subscribe and get breaking news, commentary, and opinions on law firms, lawyers, law schools, lawsuits, judges, and more.

We will never sell or share your information without your consent. See our privacy policy.