D.C. Madam Attorney Gets His Motion on Supreme Court Docket!

[PearliePoo2]

Rachel explains!
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/dc-madam-gag-order-added-to-scotus-docket-657276483519

[AxionExcel]

1. Republicans quivering in their diapers

[PearliePoo2]

2. There are 815 names, phone numbers and Social Security numbers too.

Is it too much to hope that a good number of them are RePugs in Congress INCLUDING a certain Senate
leader who looks like a turtle?
Be still, my beating heart!

[onenote]

3. I can't believe Rachel devoted 15 minutes to this nonsense

Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong but my guess is that this guy never goes through with his threat or, if he does, that it turns out to be a big yawn as regards the Presidential election.

Why do I think this? For starters, the fact that the SCOTUS has "docketed" the lawyer's application for a stay is as big a nonevent as can be. Its automatic. It means nothing as to when the Court will act or what action they will take.

And if the Court doesn't act or turns down his stay request (either of which is a more likely outcome than his application being granted), and he goes ahead anyway, he will be in a world of hurt. Not only will he be in contempt of the court that restrained the release of the information, but he would be committing a serious ethical violation, one that likely would result in his disbarment. That's because the records aren't his to disclose. They are documents provided by his client. And the duty to maintain the confidentiality of client communications outlasts the death of the client.

Of course, the guy is such a flake that maybe he'll do it, figuring that he's going to go down in flames one of the these days. A story from 2007 will give you a good sense of what a goof this guy is:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050302233.html

[Jim Lane]

5. I agree. To say that he "gets" his motion on the docket (not Rachel's headline) is misleading.

This news means only that he managed to find the Supreme Court building and pay any filing fee they have for motions. Your term "nonevent" is completely accurate.

Rachel introduced the piece with an explanation of the concept of "Dead Man's Switch" by reference to its use in the NYC subway system. When a subway motorman had a heart attack while operating his train, the passengers were safe, because the train automatically stopped. I've ridden the subways many times and I never knew that. That little item at the beginning of her story was more informative than all the succeeding drivel about the D.C. Madam thing.

If she wanted to devote 15 minutes to this, she could've explained why the original restraining order was issued. That would be relevant to assessing whether it's likely to be modified now. I'm mildly curious on that score but not enough to put in any effort to find out, having already sat through an entire TRMS piece that was the worst of hers I've ever seen.

[bemildred]

4. Anon Drops Ted Cruz ‘DC Madam Phone Documents?' (wire transfers etc )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141401491