Federal Circuit Transitions

As expected, the Federal Circuit has announced the upcoming transition of Chief Judge from Judge Prost to Judge Moore scheduled for May 22, 2021.  Judge Prost has served as chief for seven years, and Judge Moore will begin her seven year term.  According to the court announcement, Judge Prost will continue in active service. Congratulations to the Court on a successful transition.

Earlier this year, Judge Wallach announced his upcoming move to senior status set for May 31, 2021.  President Biden has nominated Tiffany Cunningham as his replacement.

The Next Chief Judge: Judge Moore

Tiffany Cunningham: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

116 thoughts on “Federal Circuit Transitions

  1. 7

    “President Biden has nominated Tiffany Cunningham as his replacement.”

    I didn’t really understand in this thread that it was about nominating what might be the first black woman to the CAFC. She seems pretty decent to me, anon seems to be upset about her biglaw and elite status, but it’ll be ok here anon I do believe.

    1. 7.1

      Certainly – my post below on that note was more in relation to someone else whining (and contains a more subtle jab against our Supreme Court and the general ‘get ahead in law’ that tends towards ElitISM.

      As I have also noted (and funny I have to keep reminding people of this). I am sure that she is well qualified. See 5.1.

  2. 6

    The below doubt that there are intellectuals that do not support CRT. Here are two links and you could easily find 100’s.

    One of these is a professor at Columbia:

    link to youtube.com

    Professor at Harvard:

    link to youtube.com

    This is actually relevant to patents as what we have seen in the jurisprudence of 101 is something similar to CRT where emotions and belief have trumped science and critical thinking. It appears to be the zeitgeist that the great awakening of the Enlightenment is dimming and surprisingly many of the people with JDs on the blog have resorted to Medieval thinking.

    1. 6.1

      And here’s more from the WSJ:

      link to wsj.com

      The fact is that keeping with the policies of the last 50 years with modifications is the way to go. We were almost there and then the neo-Marxists struck. They want power and to control us all and deal in h a t e and ‘isms, and Alice like thinking.

    2. 6.2

      Not that it much matters, I suppose, but Michael Hendrix’s c.v. is here. Jason Riley’s is here. As you can see, neither of the lip flappers on the first link are—or have ever been—affiliated with Columbia University. If one means to borrow the reputation of some well-respected institution to bolster the credibility of this loopy rant, you might at least want to name an institution that is actually associated with the YouTube crockpots you are linking.

      1. 6.2.1

        The first panel:
        Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
        Christopher F. Rufo, Contributing Editor, City Journal
        Ralph Richard Banks, Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
        Moderator: Jason L. Riley, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute

        The second video was a mistake and I meant this one:
        link to youtube.com

        Wow. You guys are really neo-Marxists. You can’t even address any of the substance and pick on minor points. You obviously have no intention of understanding this or you would do your own research.

        Your responses are just dripping with ignorance and arrogance.

    3. 6.3

      So do you accept the opinions of all Harvard/Columbia class professors as fact, or only those that confirm your preexisting opinions?

      1. 6.3.1

        So Benny,

        How about you do your own research then and make a substantive comment rather than yapping on.

        1. 6.3.1.1

          I’d like to know the rules of discussion first. You have heavily leaned on “such-and-such is true because some intellectuals says so. I think it’s reasonable to establish if you’ll respect that argument when someone else advances it.

          For what it’s worth, I think believing things because of their association with a particular institution is unwise and illogical, but if you’d really stand by those terms I can work with them.

          1. 6.3.1.1.1

            Lulz

    4. 6.4

      Similarly, none of the folks on the second YouTube link are—or have ever been—affiliated with Harvard. Rather, they are graduates of Claremont Divinity School who all work at “Yale Youth Ministry” (no affiliation with Yale Univ.). Once again, you really cannot borrow credibility from well respected institutions by simply throwing out names of institutions that have no connection to your random YouTuber “authorities.”

      1. 6.4.1

        B-b-but they are top intellectuals!

        Lulz

        1. 6.4.1.1

          You don’t count Steven Pinker as a top intellectual AAA JJ?

          I guess you are a Marxist. Scary to think Marxists are among us and can’t even understand that they are Marxists.

          1. 6.4.1.1.1

            So you just agree with Steven Pinker whenever he declares something “neo-Marxist”?

            Is that an example of you doing “your own research” and applying your super awesome “critical reasoning skills”?

            1. 6.4.1.1.1.1

              Nice strawman AAA JJ.

              I gave you three videos talking about this issue. There are literally thousands of professors that are saying the same thing.

              And, again, neo-Marxists based on race and gender rather than class. It isn’t hard to understand if you spend a few minutes thinking about the positions that you are advocating.

              1. 6.4.1.1.1.1.1

                “There are literally thousands of professors that are saying the same thing.”

                At one point in history there were literally thousands of people saying the earth was flat.

                And really? “Literally thousands of professors”?

                Even if, WTF cares? If “literally thousands of professors are saying” that CRT is “neo-Marxist” that makes CRT neo-Marxist?

                “Let’s see Harvard, Stanford, and so forth.”

                Lulz. That you think that “top intellectuals” at “Harvard, Standford, and so forth” all say something that you nod your head in agreement with bolsters your argument is pretty hilarious. What makes the proclamations of professors from Harvard, Stanford, and so forth any more persuasive than a proclamation from a professor at say, Oswego State?

                Again, it’s hilarious that you tell me that a need to “spend a few minutes thinking about the positions that you are advocating” when apparently the entirety of the “thinking” that you’ve done is conclude that CRT is neo-Marxist because some professors from Harvard, Stanford, and so forth say so.

                “But you want to yap and yap and not address a single substantive point.”

                When you make a substantive point, I will address it. (Here’s a clue: “And I’d say it would be harder to find an intellectual that is more respected than Steven Pinker” is not a substantive point.)

          2. 6.4.1.1.2

            “But, really, do your own research and stop spitting out what your CRT medieval thinkers instruct you to say.”

            Funny that you said this to me below when it’s you that is “spitting out” what your “top intellectuals” instruct you to say.

            I have no idea who the originator(s) and/or advocates of CRT are. I couldn’t care less. And I couldn’t care less what your “top intellectuals” say about or label CRT. My beliefs are my own. If I agree with some aspects of CRT that doesn’t mean I agree with all of them. Or if I agree with somebody’s position on some policy or program it doesn’t mean I agree with them on everything.

            And I don’t give two fcks what Steven Pinker thinks. About anything. But apparently you do.

            So it’s you that’s hand all your opinions handed to you and have adopted unthinkingly.

      2. 6.4.2

        Let’s see Harvard, Stanford, and so forth.

        But you want to yap and yap and not address a single substantive point.

        And I’d say it would be harder to find an intellectual that is more respected than Steven Pinker.

      3. 6.4.3

        I totally missed this line of discussion, if you bros want to get in on the youtuber intellectuals against CRT, the bigger names in the field right now are brett weinstein (literally persecuted at his institution for being a whiteish colored jewish man, not even shtting you, literal roving bands of students with bats looking to rough him up at one point) and his associated bunch of academics. They note that they have thousands of letters/emails of support from big name institution people but the others are cowed into irl silence.

        1. 6.4.3.1

          “They note that they have thousands of letters/emails of support from big name institution people but the others are cowed into irl silence.”

          Really?! Thousands of letters/emails of support?! From BIG NAME INSTITUTIONS?!

          WOW! So impressive!

          Lulz

  3. 5

    As for Tiffany Cunningham she seems qualified. I don’t know her personal views on patents. I know that at least a couple of the Obama stacking judges were personally virulently against patents.

    But let’s be real. She is qualified but Biden made one of the qualification that you be a person of color and a woman. Be real.

    No man was qualified. No white person was qualified.

    1. 5.1

      I would definitely agree that she is qualified.

      I would even agree that she is highly qualified.

      I would though state as a matter of pure fact that by applying at a first level two screens of ISMs (if that indeed there were non-male gender and non-white race requirements), that Biden has chosen to void ANY discussion of BEST qualified.

      “Anti-racist” is racist.
      “Anti-sexist” is sexist.

      Any view otherwise is simply a Liberal Left
      L
      I
      E

      1. 5.1.1

        “I would though state as a matter of pure fact…”

        And it’s a “matter of pure fact” because…? Because you declare it so?

        That must be those super awesome critical reasoning skills of yours.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          Let’s see those Fact a checkers in action.

          It is not a fact because I declare it so.

          I declare it, because it is a fact so declarable.

      2. 5.1.2

        Come on, man, get with the program!

        D iversity
        I nclusion
        E quity

        1. 5.1.2.1

          Atari Man

          🙂

      3. 5.1.3

        “Anti-racist” is racist.
        “Anti-sexist” is sexist.

        Your comments presume too much. Specifically, you presume the existence of certain actions being associated with the label of “Anti-racist.” Having a policy in which sex (or race) is not a factor is not “racist” or “sexist.”

        However, your comments presumes that “Anti-racist” encompasses actions that involve using race as a factor to help under-represented minorities (or genders) become more represented. This is a form of “racism” but it shouldn’t be placed in the same bucket as an action in which race is used as a factor to ensure that under-represented minorities remain underrepresented. One set of actions is perpetuating an evil based upon the mistaken belief that one gender or race is superior to another. The other set of actions is attempting to rebut that mistaken belief by showing that race/sex shouldn’t be a qualification. However, to do that, there needs to be evidence that race/sex doesn’t matter, which is provided by people of that race/sex put into those positions.

        This is a classic catch-22. You cannot prove that all races/sexes are capable unless you put them into these positions. However, you cannot do that without employing race/sex-conscious factors to put them into these positions. This is why quotas (comparable to the current usage of “diversity”) is not universally popular.

        Ultimately, we have two really options: (i) perpetuate the evils of the past by giving preference to those who have already been advantaged or (ii) attempt to compensate for the evils of the past by advantaging those that have been disadvantaged in the past.

        It is the choice between two evils. However, they are not identical evils as I believe choice (ii) is certainly the lesser evil as compared to choice (i).

        One might argue that there is a choice (iii), which is that the evil associated with choice (i) will eventually die out over time (i.e., a laissez-faire approach). Certainly, things are much better now than they were in the 50s and 60s. However, 50 years later and there is still massive amounts of inequity based upon race/sex. How much longer are we willing to wait? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Choice (ii) is an attempt to accelerate the process.

        That being said, I would rather have people discuss how we can ensure that choice (ii) has a sunset provision (there were never a sunset provision for choice (i)). I think people would be more willing to accept the inequities associated with choice (ii) if we can define a point at which the remedial provisions of choice (ii) can be phased out.

        If this was an easy issue with a win/win solution, then we would have implemented it already. Ultimately, there are going to be losers whatever choice we undertake. Choice (i) merely perpetuates the evil of discrimination. Choice (iii) (i.e., the lassez-faire approach) does not guarantee any good result in the end and who really knows when it will work. Choice (ii) creates winners and losers. However, its underlying goal is noble so long as there is a way to for society to jettison it when appropriate.

        1. 5.1.3.1

          Your comments presume too much. Specifically, you presume the existence of certain actions being associated with the label of “Anti-racist.”.

          I make no such presumptions.

          I suggest that you inform yourself of the meaning of the terms — as espoused by Critical Race Theory.

          Come back when you understand the context of the conversation.

          (by the way, I’m pretty sure that you would be in the “happy” middle ground between “racyist” and “anti-racyist” — that being simply Not Racist; but that middle ground is not allowed to exist because “history,” “implicit bias” and the rest of the huey.

          1. 5.1.3.1.1

            I make no such presumptions.

            I suggest that you inform yourself of the meaning of the terms — as espoused by Critical Race Theory.
            LOL … you contradict yourself in two sentences. I’m using the plain meanings of the terms “Anti-racist” and “Anti-sexist” — not some special definition (i.e., your presumption).

            Come back when you understand the context of the conversation.
            I understand the context of the conversation. There are a bunch of white men getting bent out of shape because a black woman got nominated. As a white male, I am am just a teensy tiny, little bit sympathetic to your cause. However, as a famous philosopher named Elsa once stated … “LET IT GO, LET IT GO.”

            by the way, I’m pretty sure that you would be in the “happy” middle ground between “racyist” and “anti-racyist” — that being simply Not Racist; but that middle ground is not allowed to exist because “history,” “implicit bias” and the rest of the huey
            Were you trying to make a point?

            1. 5.1.3.1.1.1

              Your attempt to use “plain meaning” is inappropriate, given that the context of the discussion is directly at point for a different meaning of the terms.

              That is NOT “my” presumption — it is merely being informed and aware.

              Your “let it go” is most odd. That’s less the cartoon and more of an ostrich.

              You do not have to join the dialogue. That is always your choice. But if you decide to join the dialogue, try to join in a manner that shows that you have some minimal understanding.

              1. 5.1.3.1.1.1.1

                Your attempt to use “plain meaning” is inappropriate, given that the context of the discussion is directly at point for a different meaning of the terms.
                So you are working with different means of the terms. In other words, you are making specific presumptions as to how these terms are being employed — i.e., not in the manner in which they are typically used (e.g., “anti-sexist” meaning being against sexism).

                You do not have to join the dialogue. That is always your choice.
                Admittedly, I cringed at first before joining this dialogue as the misogyny was pretty thick in the air.

                But if you decide to join the dialogue, try to join in a manner that shows that you have some minimal understanding.
                Have some minimal understanding? Of what? That the current administration put forth a candidate for the Federal Circuit having credentials that would have most of you dancing in the streets if she was a he and had less skin pigmentation, but because she was a she and she clearly didn’t have a great percentage of Northern European heritage, this was an unfair process? Is that the “minimal understanding” I’m missing?

                While you criticize me for lacking “some minimal understanding,” I provided you with a reason for the process that you object to, which is that it was good “politics” for the administration that prevailed in the recent elections. Judicial nominations are as much about politics as it is about qualifications.

                As for me, I cannot see where you discussion about “critical race theory” has any relevance in a patent law blog or about this particular topic. There is NO EVIDENCE that critical race theory (or the application thereof) had anything to do with this particular nomination. Ms. Cunningham is, at the very least, as qualified as any Federal Circuit nominee that I can recall. That should be what is most relevant to any conversation that involves patent law. If you want to discuss critical race theory, then perhaps The Daily Stormer is a more appropriate forum.

                1. I cringed at first before joining this dialogue…

                  One is always well advised to hang back from engaging in dialogue with Anon. It is rarely a worthwhile occupation for one’s finite minutes on this Earth.

                2. As for me, I cannot see where you discussion about “critical race theory” has any relevance in a patent law blog or about this particular topic.

                  Wt,

                  Your “desire” to stick your head in the ground simply does not control reality. The point of the matter is that CRT IS on point per the discussion points. You jumped in to respond to my post (making an errant assertion about something being “my” presumption) and you really should try to read what I actually wrote as you continue to double down on your decision to NOT be informed as to what the language ON THE TABLE actually means, – it is simply NOT “my” presumptions at play here. I am not the one that set the use of the terms as they are used. My point – which you STILL want to balk at – for who know what reasons – is that the terms ARE NOT open to mere plain meaning that YOU want to presume to use. As I noted, you would certainly NOT make that same mistake with the terms of ‘obviousness’ or ‘utility’ in a patent law discussion, would you?

                  There is NO EVIDENCE that critical race theory (or the application thereof) had anything to do with this particular nomination. Ms. Cunningham is, at the very least, as qualified as any Federal Circuit nominee that I can recall.

                  Great – read again what I wrote. Do not skip the first couple of lines.

                  That should be what is most relevant to any conversation that involves patent law.” And here, you insert your opinion as some type of mandatory discussion control.

                  Yeah, no.

                  YOU don’t get to decide such things. The point AT FACT is that the “D” party has invoked this line of discussion with ITS choices to emphasize PC rhetoric such as “equity” replacing any norm of “equality.”

                  THIS is the point that you want to merely stick your head in the sand, retreat to an errant “plain meaning” of terms that simply are not being used IN that ‘sense’ of plain meaning, and then want to excuse your own error by doubling down and pounding the table about “ as the misogyny was pretty thick in the air.” and “that would have most of you dancing in the streets if she was a he and had less skin pigmentation, but because she was a she and she clearly didn’t have a great percentage of Northern European heritage” – which is an entirely baseless assertionfrom you as directed to me. Nowhere have any indicated any such OTHER END OF THE EXTREME view.

                  Quite in fact, this tactic shows the fallacy of Critical Race Theory. You had asked about “Were you trying to make a point? with my ‘happy middle point” – and it is abundantly clear that the point is that BOTH ends of the extreme are bad – but it is a fallacy of Critical Race Theory to ONLY embrace both extremes. There is a middle ground: the color blind zone of simply not being racy ist. Your eagerness to label me on the one extreme – when I am in the middle belies your bias here.

                  If you want to discuss critical race theory, then perhaps The Daily Stormer is a more appropriate forum.

                  I provided you with a reason for the process that you object to, which is that it was good “politics” for the administration that prevailed in the recent elections. Judicial nominations are as much about politics as it is about qualifications.

                  Pay attention son. Read again WHY I have objected to anything here. Don’t be making things up just because I have disagreed with you.

                3. …third last paragraph should have been shown in italics

                  Of course, the point being that it is the “D” – and specifically Biden – who has by THEIR choices, injected CRT into our lovely esoteric neck of the legal woods.

                4. The point of the matter is that CRT IS on point per the discussion points.
                  I don’t see the relevance of CRT to either Ms. Cunningham’s qualifications or patent law in general. But again, and circling back to my original point, your raising of specific definitions associated with CRT are assumptions that not everybody makes.

                  as you continue to double down on your decision to NOT be informed as to what the language ON THE TABLE actually means
                  You mean what the language on the table actual means TO YOU. It is not what the language means to me or most people I know. The average person has little understanding of CRT and what it stands for. It does not serve as the basis for most people’s discussion of the topic. If you want to discuss CRT then go for it. However, don’t ASSUME that everybody is on the same page as you without you first identifying this as being the topic of conversation.

                  And here, you insert your opinion as some type of mandatory discussion control.
                  Well, when I’m on a patent blog, I like to talk about patent law — not critical race theory. So sue me.

                  which is an entirely baseless assertionfrom you as directed to me. Nowhere have any indicated any such OTHER END OF THE EXTREME view.
                  Self-awareness is a great attribute that you should strive for. Much of the conversation in this thread is cringe-worthy.

                  Pay attention son. Read again WHY I have objected to anything here. Don’t be making things up just because I have disagreed with you.
                  LOL. Your reputation for obtuse, obscure, and incomprehensible writings precedes you. Not everybody has access to your vast dictionary of personal catch phrases, anacronyms, and self-referential statements. You object because that is what you like to do. However, proposing solutions to issues is not one of your strong suits.

                  For example, what is your solution to the problem of racism? Is it the “happy middle ground” where white guys still dominate in positions of power? That is what you seem to be arguing for.

                5. But again, and circling back to my original point, your raising of specific definitions associated with CRT are assumptions that not everybody makes.

                  and

                  It is not what the language means to me or most people I know

                  The discussion is using those terms as terms of art.

                  If YOU are making ‘an assumption’ otherwise, it is YOU that is so doing.

                  I cordially invited you to be aware of this – you declined. Having done so, all error is on you.

                  Well, when I’m on a patent blog, I like to talk about patent law — not critical race theory. So sue me.

                  No need of that from me – it is a need for YOU to pay attention. As I have also stated, our esoteric neck of the woods is infected with these terms because Herr Biden has declared “Equity” is a government-wide edict.

                  Self-awareness is a great attribute that you should strive for. Much of the conversation in this thread is cringe-worthy.

                  LOL – Heed your own advice, son. Practically ALL of my beef with you is stemming from your own lack of self-awareness, and its related lack of awareness of the topic at hand. Revisit my first admonition of you – and take that advice.

                  As to my “solution,” asked and answered: Treat each situation on the merits in a color-blind manner.

            2. 5.1.3.1.1.2

              Wt, think of it this way – would you wander into a patent law discussion wanting to use ‘plain meaning’ for such terms as “obvious” and “utility?”

        2. 5.1.3.2

          Reply in filter…

    2. 5.2

      Night Writer,

      My response is in the George Carlin filter.

      Apparently, even the typing of ISMs is ‘offensive.’

    3. 5.3

      “…Biden made one of the qualification that you be a person of color and a woman.”

      For about 350 years or so the only two qualifications required were: 1) white 2) male. How outraged were/are you about that?

      1. 5.3.1

        I have always been against such ISMs and any non-Merit views.

        But that does not “fit in” with your desired narrative, now does it?

        1. 5.3.1.1

          Do you always respond to questions that are not directed to you?

          The world outside your mom’s basement is big. Get out once in awhile.

          1. 5.3.1.1.1

            I respond at points that help the larger context of conversation.

            That includes points put on the table by you that are nothing but inane excuses for engaging in the very type of behavior that you profess to be offended by,

            Simple check for you: would you be OK with the labels switched?

            You seem to want to make it a ploy that “because history” a current reversal is perfectly fine.

            That is an ethically abysmal position.

            So yes, I will call you out on that.

            Own it or change it – your choice.

          2. 5.3.1.1.2

            The world outside your mom’s basement is big. Get out once in awhile.

            Mindless ad hominem. Malcolm’s returned and he wants his tactics back.

          3. 5.3.1.1.3

            AAA JJ:

            First I wasn’t alive 350 years ago. Second the “only qualification” was not being a white male but competence and being a white male.

            Third, the programs that have been in place over the last 60 years have had tremendous success. Black people are over represented or about equally represented in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and in Congress. The number of black people in Congress has doubled over the last 20 years.

            So–you sound like a “woke” person. If so you are a neo-Marxist and not a liberal D. I am a liberal D. We liberal Ds believe in the principles of the Enlightenment.

            So–yes, I think it is wrong for Biden to select people based on their gender and skin color rather than their competence. I think that doing so will ultimately make things worse when we have spent so many decades improving things.

            Etc. It would take a couple of pages to explain to you all the reasons I think it is wrong.

            Also think about this. The people that are giving black people all this money and power at the expense of everyone else are doing so under the premise that they received unjust wealth and power and yet are not giving up any of their wealth and power but taking it from young people.

            1. 5.3.1.1.3.1

              I also think that any black person in power or any wealthy black person is now tainted. Most people will think they received whatever they have unjustly and don’t deserve it. I also think that what the “woke” have done is make it so that black people and white people are less likely to intermix in social constructs as white people are just going to be afraid or feel that somehow black people will be favored over them for historical reasons and with nothing to do with the present.

              Also, if you bother to read what intellectuals say about this, then you will find that many say this is neo-Marxism and very dangerous.

              And you will find that many of the black people that are receiving all these gifts are not oppressed people but from upper middle class backgrounds and better off at birth than 90 percent of the people in the USA.

              1. 5.3.1.1.3.1.1

                So the question isn’t whether racism is and was a problem, the question is what policies should be in place to work on fixing it.

                The policies we had in place have done wonders compared to the rest of the world. We obviously need some big changes and new safeguards in place but the “woke” movement is a power play by neo-Marxists. Mark my words that in 5 or 10 years, you and the country will regret allowing the “woke” movement to gain power. It is not the path to a just society.

                1. Biden could have moved us forward a couple of giant steps by switching completely to situational help.

                  The fact is that sociologists will tell you that poor black, white, and Hispanic communities have common problems and the solutions are common to all.

                  Biden has rather than reduce color considerations just made them the primary consideration for the next 20 years and inflamed racial problems.

                2. “The fact is that sociologists will tell you that poor black, white, and Hispanic communities have common problems and the solutions are common to all.”

                  No. Poor white people don’t face systemic racism.

                3. With “Equity” (as opposed to equality), they certainly do.

                  You cannot fight racyism with racyism.

                4. ” systemic racism”

                  It’s a different kind of systemic ra cism, to be sure, but it exists. Facing competition that gets +300 SAT scores ez in admissions, similar in LSAT and MCAT scores ez along with GPA quite often, is obviously just one thing. Facing a gubmit system where it is socially forboddin to even announce your ethnicity as something other than “white” (generic), and the only socially permissible to advocate pro- your ethnicity policies allowed are generally for rich people and somewhat abstract, being somewhat of another thing entirely, even if you happen to live in a super poor area which happens to be mostly white. That’s under a social-system (driven mostly be elites, many of whom are white themselves, and through cultural/media etc. outlets), though it is embedded in most institutions now as well. Along with the socio expectation that white people, in specific, become the supar-moral exemplars of the modern humanist post-christian morality espoused in large part by the left, dreamed up by boomers mostly. That is, to display outgroup preference in all things in any way that can be IDed. They are forms of rac ism bro, even if they should be tolerated to “even things out” etc. The faster you recognize this the faster you’ll understand why there are upset people “on the other side” from your position other than bs lef tist imaginings about them. More and more examples persist, leftist domination of the culture is more and more obvious, and them erecting cultural systems of rac ism (blatant) become more and more perceptible by even the everyman/woman by the day. You insisting that this isn’t going on isn’t going to change that it is, in fact, going on and is being increasingly noticed.

                  And all of that is setting aside the “biggie in the room”, which is the elites in the country (mostly white) transforming the country into a glorious multi-culti empire. This being done to try to show off themselves (mostly boomers and that crowd) as “not being racistlol” under oldschool racism definitions, and econ growth n power n finances etc. while the everywhiteman constantly bears the sociological (being called racist (evil) even more often, and for increasingly abstract things etc., having giant media corps broadcast such all over their country 24/7 to gin up the minority’s passions etc., no longer is there 10-20% of the population that you risk being called racist against under ever increasing/changing/trifling definitions, now it’s like 40+%, and your everywhiteman overall political opinion that you should not be robbed via taxes overmuch by your gubmit for its giant pet project of trying, usually unsuccessfully, to boost minority groups to be as successful as you, ostensibly to fight your own evil, is eventually just outvoted by those that want that particular pet gubmit project which is usually unsuccessful and/or to defend the various peoples of the world outside of the country), and often econ/tax etc. etc. burden thereof. Bottom line, the everywhiteman never wanted a glorious multi-culti hegemonic empire to be created for the elites, but they made it anyway. And now the everywhiteman will need to perpetually pay for it (in many many ways some noted above) for at least the rest of my natural days. I personally can afford it, and benefit therefrom, and happen to be well positioned for this having happened/happening (as is AAA), but the everywhiteman is not. And all of that is a form of classism, largely born by/directed to one group (literally the founding definition of ra cism from back back in the day, “raci sm” being a play on “classi sm”). Leftists and the general culture created by leftists will have many arguments against this being the case, or why it should be accepted, or why x y z about it, and many are quite convincing to me, but it isn’t going to change that it is happening and does have effects, call it whatever they like.

                  But gl guys, on the one hand we have one commentator thinking that a white power structure doesn’t existlol and another commentator thinking that anti-white racism is not systemiclol. Both are simply mistaken positions, though obviously, as major leftists will eventually concede, and which is likely, the anti-white (and some other ethnicities/races) systemic racism is less powerful, to the point that they just don’t even like to “count it” of have it “called that”.

                  “With “Equity” (as opposed to equality), they certainly do.”

                  No kidding anon. The whole equity leftist meme is a hilarious attempt to introduce many an ism under the ruberic of some vague notion of equity which most people don’t even comprehend (or understand that the “judges” of which are to be leftists lol). Obviously in order to try to combat many an ism.

                5. AAA JJ: No. Poor white people don’t face systemic racism.

                  It is really sad to see someone with an education give up on critical thinking and result to emotion based coercion as a means of thinking. Sad.

                  Do your own research. The fact is that poor white people face something similar in being categorized as abysmal horrible and incorrigible people.

                  But, really, do your own research and stop spitting out what your CRT medieval thinkers instruct you to say.

                6. “Do your own research. The fact is that poor white people face something similar in being categorized as abysmal horrible and incorrigible people.”

                  Is that what “your own research” tells you? that “poor white people…being categorized as abysmal horrible and incorrigible people” is a “common problem” to the systemic racism that Black people face? Is that what your “critical thinking” leads you to conclude?

                7. AAA JJ,

                  When 6 – with his idiosyncratic choice of dialogue absolutely blasts you and exposes the vapidity of your mindless Liberal Left tendencies, it is time for you to refocus yourself on the more deliberate aspects of patent law, and to leave the philosophical/political domain to those that could get out of their own way.

                8. While 6 does go for a certain effect with his lingo, he handed you your head on a plate.

                  I do see as well that you simply refuse to absorb anything that does not fit your prescribed world view, so even if 6 had chosen to converse in tones of which you are more accustomed, you still would not grasp what he is telling you.

            2. 5.3.1.1.3.2

              “So–yes, I think it is wrong for Biden to select people based on their gender and skin color rather than their competence.”

              That’s not what Biden did. She’s eminently qualified. So no, he didn’t nominate her “based on” her gender and/or skin color.

              Basing your argument on a completely false premise is not very persuasive.

              “Black people are over represented or about equally represented in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and in Congress. The number of black people in Congress has doubled over the last 20 years.”

              This is the first year in the history of our country that the number of Black Representatives is roughly proportional to the Black population of our country.

              In the entire history of the Senate there have been ELEVEN Black senators.

              As for the executive branch, do you have anything to cite that Blacks are “over represented or about equally represented”?

              I notice you leave out the judicial branch. I wonder why. (Not really, I know why.)

              “I also think that any black person in power or any wealthy black person is now tainted. Most people will think they received whatever they have unjustly and don’t deserve it.”

              I don’t think that.

              1. 5.3.1.1.3.2.1

                AAA JJ:

                You didn’t even bother to think about any of that.

                “That’s not what Biden did. She’s eminently qualified. So no, he didn’t nominate her “based on” her gender and/or skin color.”

                Yes Biden did. He made a requirement be that their skin color not be white and their gender not be male.

                “This is the first year in the history of our country …”

                So we liberal Ds have been pushing hard for policies that improve the country and finally we get to a place where it looks like tremendous progress has been made and then suddenly a “woke movement” claims that nothing has been done and they want to form a neo-Marxist movement and then claim the progress that took the liberal Ds like me 50 years to achieve.

                Go to google and type in “critical race theory criticism”. Watch and read what intellectuals say about what Biden is doing.

                And in the judiciary at the Scotus there is about equal representation but throughout the judiciary there is still work to do.

                You are an ideologue. Sorry but it is true. Try to un-woke yourself by reading and listening to lectures about CRT and intersectionality.

                1. “You didn’t even bother to think about any of that.”

                  I thought about all of it. And I replied appropriately. Still waiting to hear your evidence that Black people are “over represented or about equally represented” in the executive branch. Do you have any?

                  Still waiting to hear why you didn’t mention all the tremendous progress we’ve made with representation in the judicial branch. Have we? If not, why not?

                  See, it’s you who didn’t think about any of that. If you have any answers I’m listening.

                2. AAA JJ:

                  Stop misrepresenting what I’ve said. And in the executive branch right now black people make up 25% as Harris is half Indian American and half African American.

                  You Marxist are so difficult to deal with.

                3. “claims that nothing has been done and they want to form a neo-Marxist movement and then claim the progress that took the liberal Ds like me 50 years to achieve.”

                  They really are coat tail riders lol. Tiny 7% of the population, n they think they liek totally did da civil rights and stormed normandy and etc. etc. its hilarious.

              2. 5.3.1.1.3.2.2

                Basing your argument on a completely false premise is not very persuasive.

                Pot meet stellar black hole.

            3. 5.3.1.1.3.3

              “Second the ‘only qualification’ was not being a white male but competence and being a white male.”

              So no incompetent white guys got appointed to anything?

              I have some beach front property in Nebraska you might be interested in purchasing.

                1. Nice “Whataboutism” that simply is not germane to THIS issue.

                  (By the by, I don’t recall YOU bringing up Kavanaugh as it relates to patent law or the current issue either).

                  Greg “Virtue Signaller” DeLassus.

                2. Why do you assume I support Brett Kavanaugh?

                  You see that is the problem the “woke” neo-Marxists are trying to claim the left and disenfranchise the liberal Ds like me.

                  Not being on your “woke” side does not make me an R.

                3. When I am wrong, I am wrong. I apologize for any untoward aspersions that I cast.

                  Well that’s total B$, as Greg is very often wrong — as I have pointed out — and he won’t admit it, ‘because anon is so mean.’

                4. And here, Greg has boasted that he has blocked himself from reading my comments…

                  The link that Greg provides shows (again) his attempt to malign me.

                  But if he cannot read my comments, on what basis at all would he assert, “Anon stuck up for Kavanaugh?”

                  Never mind the fact that the ACTUAL first words of mine in reply to Night Writer were: “I am not happy with (yet another) Ivy League pick – in and of itself, as well as the fact that this represents a “swamp” factor of being from the Washington DC area.

                  Greg confuses discussing of a point asserted with “sticking up for”

                  Just because I wanted some verification for a statement that went against what I had been reading of the candidate (that is – developing an informed opinion) does NOT make that “sticking up for.”

                  But let’s see the hypocrisy of Greg in action here,, as he has now boasted as how he is so magnanimous and “When I am wrong, I am wrong. I apologize for any untoward aspersions that I cast.

              1. 5.3.1.1.3.3.3

                Richard Feynman once remarked that “[t]he first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” When it comes to discussions of race, class, gender, and high office, there are two easy ways we fool ourselves, and therefore two simple truths that we all need to struggle to keep in mind:

                (1) Beyond a certain point of education, experience, and demonstrated talent, there is no “best qualified” individual. Obviously Benjamin Cardozo was better qualified to serve on the circuit court of appeals than would have been Fatty Arbuckle, but was Cardozo “better qualified” than Learned Hand?

                The question is meaningless. The words “better qualified” have no objective content once one is considering contemporaneous candidates within a certain elite circle of candidates defined by excellent education, excellent experience, and excellent demonstrated talent. Any discussion of one of these excellent candidates being “passed over” in favor of a “less qualified” candidate from that same elite circle is literal nonsense (as in, words having no objective sense) and an sure sign that the speaker is trying to disguise some other agenda under a veneer of “qualification.”

                (2) The United States has done pretty well for itself in the nearly two and a half centuries of its existence. Evidently, the way that we have been running our society has been pretty effective. And yet, for almost all of that time, we have been either explicitly or implicitly committed not to appointing the “best qualified” individuals to offices of high influence. We spent most of our history categorically refusing to take advantage of the contributions that women could make, that those of African heritage could make, that those of indigenous heritage could make, that those of Asian heritage could make, etc.

                In other words, the nation can get by quite well with not-quite-the-best running the offices of high influence. I think that we could have been doing even better over these years if we had not been hobbling ourselves by refusing to take advantage of all the talent at our disposal. Clearly, however, there is no cause to panic that we might be passing over some uniquely qualified individual for this or that office. Our history proves that there is no such criticality of qualification.

                1. Again, the progress we’ve made is very good to excellent over the last 20 years.

                  The question isn’t will we survive or is it just in a grand uber thought experiment but what are the next steps we should take for a just society.

                  The question is one of does this promote equality and a just society or does it foment the problems we have?

                  I think the policies that he liberal Ds have pushed for 40 years have been very effective.

                  Consider that what HRC said is correct. The biggest differences and problems occur before the age of 12.

                  Oh well…talking to a wall and all.

              2. 5.3.1.1.3.3.4

                “I have some beach front property in Nebraska you might be interested in purchasing.”

                This is quite irrelevant, but I find the subject of this article so amusing that I feel compelled to share it here.

                link to en.m.wikipedia.org

                “Nebraska Admiral (formally, Admiral in the Great Navy of the State of Nebraska) is Nebraska’s highest honor, and an honorary title bestowed upon individuals by approval of the Governor of Nebraska, the only triply landlocked U.S. state.”

            4. 5.3.1.1.3.4

              “Also think about this. The people that are giving black people all this money and power at the expense of everyone else are doing so under the premise that they received unjust wealth and power and yet are not giving up any of their wealth and power but taking it from young people.”

              That’s the very best part about the whole modern leftist sc htick, it’s all upside for upper class boomer virtue signaling.

              1. 5.3.1.1.3.4.1

                Note as well 6 – the virtue signaling coupled with the “I see nothing” view that CRT is not even on the table.

                You have try really really hard to be so blind.

    4. 5.4

      No man was qualified. No white person was qualified.
      Was that stated? I don’t believe so. Biden selected a highly-qualified candidate. That should be the end of it. The prior administration picked judges that appealed to their political base, and Biden has submitted judicial nominees that appealed to his political base. Does that surprise anybody in the least?

      There will always be dozens (hundreds?) of “qualified” candidates for many positions (in the administration or in the judiciary). From what I’ve seen, not all of those positions have gone to either persons of color or woman. Personally, it doesn’t matter me so long as they are qualified. Moreover, I wouldn’t dwell on the unimportant.

      I know that at least a couple of the Obama stacking judges were personally virulently against patents.
      Their views on patents are certainly more important to me. However, labeling a judge an “Obama” judge is hardly indicative of their beliefs about patents. For example, I would much rather have O’Malley or Stoll (both Obama appointees) on my panel than Sharon Prost (GW Bush appointee). I would rather gnaw off my arm than to have Mayer (Reagan appointee) on my panel.

      1. 5.4.1

        There will always be dozens (hundreds?) of “qualified” candidates for many positions (in the administration or in the judiciary).

        This is, of course, the really key insight that cuts through most of the nonsense that dominates this sort of discussion. There is no such thing as the “best qualified” individual. The words have no objective meaning in this context.

        Our nation is blessed to have literally thousands of individuals who can do credit to these offices. In a nation of 330+ million people, we have an embarrassment of riches from whom to choose. Obviously, some of those 330 million are better suited than others, but beyond a certain point it is meaningless to speak of this highly suitable candidate being “less qualified” or “more qualified” than that highly qualified candidate.

      2. 5.4.2

        >>heir views on patents are certainly more important to me. However, labeling a judge an “Obama” judge is hardly indicative of their beliefs about patents.

        Absolutely wrong. It was clear that SV selected the judges for Obama. This didn’t start until after O’Malley and was less so with Stoll. Stoll was less so because she was a replacement for Rader and Obama was trying not to draw too much criticism. So, he picked Stoll who is about as anti-patent as he could pick and still not be heavily criticized. So think. We went from Rader to Stoll. That is a huge loss for pro-patenting or pro-apply the law people. And Stoll is known for being mentally unstable. Everyone that worked with her said so.

        But if you look at the core of the Obama appointments they are an absolute nightmare. Taranto is probably the worst as he is very intelligent and has been behind many of the decisions that have limited patenting such as the expansion of invaliding patents under 112 and reissues.

        Chen–He was virulently—virulently–anti-software patents at the USPTO. He mellowed a bit but the appointment was clearly meant to burn down software patenting.
        Hughes–another horrible human being.
        Reyna –no patent experience before hand and a nightmare.

        1. 5.4.2.1

          Plus, wank, before you contradict something I said and strawman my arguments, do a little research.

          You will find that SV companies were in the White House everyday and interviewed Lee before she was appointed to the USPTO. And there are strong indications that SV controlled all of Obama’s appointments between O’Malley and Stoll.

        2. 5.4.2.2

          “And Stoll is known for being mentally unstable. Everyone that worked with her said so.”

          She’s probably a neo-Marxist.

          In all seriousness, throwing around unsubstantiated allegations of mental instability is pretty sh!tty. Then again, look at the source.

          1. 5.4.2.2.1

            AAA JJ:

            Just do some research and you will quickly see that your political affiliation is neo-Marxist and that you are trying to push out people like me–the liberal Ds.

            And my comments are from dealing with Stoll directly and talking to others who were working with her.

            Stop being so pi ssy.

          2. 5.4.2.2.2

            Have you bothered even trying to understand why the “woke” movement is neo-Marxist? And why intellectuals are so disturbed by the “woke” movement?

            The “woke” movement is a dangerous play for power by Marxists. Not only that but they haven’t even pushed for the types of reforms liberals Ds like me have been calling for since Reagan such as de-criminalizing all drugs, reforming welfare so that the fathers can stay with the family, and so forth.

            The “woke” are violent, dangerous people.

            1. 5.4.2.2.2.1

              “Not only that but they haven’t even pushed for the types of reforms liberals Ds like me have been calling for since Reagan such as de-criminalizing all drugs, reforming welfare so that the fathers can stay with the family, and so forth.”

              I’m pretty sure that leftists do actually want drugs decriminalized (tho not heroin and hard ones). Not sure why you would think otherwise. As to the reformation of welfare to keep fathers in the family, why would leftists want that? The weaker the family unit the stronger the need for their gubmit interventions. Further, if you reform welfare like that, and keep the father in the fam, then the fam often doesn’t need welfare as the father just goes and makes money to support them as normal. With that being said however, word from Kevin Samuels is that in the black community at present black women have gigantic notches of proposals (they’ll literally have 3-6 proposals over their lifetime), tho only 25% of them will ever marry, and apparently according to him, this isn’t because of the welfare laws but rather because of very complex socio-economic factors currently happening, at least in large part he claims.

          3. 5.4.2.2.3

            AAA JJ:

            My opinions of Stoll are from first hand dealings with her and from people that worked with her who said the same thing.

        3. 5.4.2.3

          “Stoll was less so because she was a replacement for Rader and Obama was trying not to draw too much criticism.”

          I think you mis-remember. Stoll was not nominated as a replacement for Rader but assumed chief status when Rader unexpectedly retired early, prior to the end of his term as chief. Moore was next in line to be chief after Rader but, due to the age and seniority requirements, Stoll became chief instead.

        4. 5.4.2.4

          Sorry. I was thinking Prost when you said Stoll. Never mind.

  4. 4

    LOL at “Ivy League” as a meaningful credential for exceptional skill or quality in 2021. People still haven’t figured out how those places work?

    1. 4.1

      IT’S ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!

    2. 4.2

      IT’S ALIVE!!

      1. 4.2.1

    3. 4.3

      What were you in the slammer for?

      1. 4.3.1

        Curmudgeoning?

        (But — do we know whether it’s the one-and-0nly, TRUE MM? Inquiring minds want to know!)

        1. 4.3.1.1

          meh, not really.

          His tendency for multiple pseudonyms was fairly limited to his posting at PatentDocs.

          As to someone else impersonating him…. the icon is a match, and not sure what ‘value’ there would be in doing so.

    4. 4.4

      Holy shit, you in the clink or what bro? Welcome back man, was about to have to put you on a dual ned-mm memorial.

      1. 4.4.1

  5. 3

    Why does she need to be “more qualified than any other ivy league big law partner”?

    1. 3.1

      Good question. As we have already seen, no matter how obviously qualified she is, various malcontents will complain that a white guy should have gotten the job instead. There is no point at which her qualifications will be recognized as so obviously superior that she will not be subject to grumblings and whisperings from her discontented detractors.

      Still and all, she is obviously well qualified for the job, for the reasons listed in 2.1, 2.1.1, & 2.2 below. It cannot hurt to take note of this truth from time to time.

      1. 3.1.1

        The thread — being completely clear of any racyism malcontents — will be virtue signaled by Greg.

        So special.

        1. 3.1.1.1

          +1

      2. 3.1.2

        Its hard out there for white males, Greg.

  6. 2

    How is Tiffany Cunningham more qualified than any other ivy league big law partners?

    1. 2.1

      Hi Jon. I agree that we should only appoint judges that will be excellent judges.

      Cunningham: MIT chemical engineer; Harvard JD; Federal Circuit clerkship; 20 years as an IP litigator and counsellor.

      I’ll report on her nomination materials once they are made public by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

      1. 2.1.1

        “Having an engineering degree” is an answer to Jon’s question.

    2. 2.2

      There are only two judges currently serving on the CAFC who both (1) graduated from an “Ivy League” school (for any degree) and (2) came to the CAFC from “big law”: Raymond Clevenger (double Yale, Wilmer) & Timothy Dyk (double Harvard, Jones Day). Neither of those two had studied science of any sort.

      Ms. Cunningham will be only the third judge on the CAFC who both attended an “Ivy League” school (Harvard law) and worked in “big law” (Perkins Coie). Unlike her other two fellows, she studied engineering as an undergrad and has a registration to practice in front of the PTO. That makes her—objectively—better qualified for service on the CAFC than both of the other Ivy League, big law partners. Qualifications are not everything, but to the extent that one might assess qualifications, hers simply are better.

      1. 2.2.1

        How is this for anti-virtual signaling…

        We need anyone NOT in the Elite class of Ivy League PLUS Big Law combo.

        (think about that for awhile)

      2. 2.2.2

        On paper, she’s as qualified as anyone who’s been nominated in the last 20 years.

        I don’t think the standard is “better than anyone else.” On a very rough estimate, I think probably somewhere in the range of 100 or more “qualified” people, and the nomination comes down to other factors like politics, connections, and what some lawyer close to the president had for breakfast on some important day in the nomination process. That’s the bar others had to clear, and it seems unfair to suggest a different, higher standard for the current nominee.

        1. 2.2.2.1

          I don’t think the standard is “better than anyone else.

          I do hear what you are saying, and to a large degree agree — “above a threshold” as a first hurdle would be a welcome development.

          But that turns a blind eye to the ISMs running amuck and just who may have made any chance into consideration after such a first hurdle.

          Ask yourself if you would be ok with flipping the labels.

          The utter inanity of trying to fight some thing WITH embracing that very thing (against someone else) is mind boggling.

          And it is a complete non sequitur to try to offer a justification of “well, the labels were switched for so long.”

          E
          V
          I
          L

          is

          E
          V
          I
          L

          1. 2.2.2.1.1

            Your position that affirmative action is the same ev!l as slavery is what is utterly inane.

            If you can’t tell the difference between the two you may want a refund on that awesome degree you got that you think provided you with such awesome “critical reasoning skills.”

            1. 2.2.2.1.1.1

              Nice strawman.

              I have never held or stated the assertion that you make.

              Maybe try addressing the points that I actually present.

              1. 2.2.2.1.1.1.1

                “I have never held or stated the assertion that you make.”

                You most certainly have.

                1. I most certainly have not.

                  You employing a radicalization of my view is not my view.

                  At the same time, degree of
                  E
                  V
                  I
                  L
                  As opposed to TYPE of
                  E
                  V
                  I
                  L
                  are distinctions that YOU should not attempt to obfuscate.

          2. 2.2.2.1.2

            I think I get it, but I’m not inclined to fault the Cunningham nomination for arguably distasteful things Biden has said about his decision process. I’d probably feel differently if Cunningham were obviously unqualified, if judicial selection wasn’t inherently subjective or political, or if there was a broader pattern showing that people who share Biden’s personal demographic characteristics were systematically frozen out of consideration.

  7. 1

    Hooray!

    1. 1.1

      Seconded!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture