Lapka, can I eat this one?


Couple stumbles on ‘massive mushroom’ during foraging adventure

God, I am so jelly. It is basically zero mushrooms here this year.
You absolutely definitely can eat that. It is one of the best kinds on mushroom: king bolete. The size is not cool part of the story because you want young small mushrooms for your food.

General rule: with exception of one kind all mushrooms with sponge and not thin plates on the lower part are edible. The only poisonous exception is Rubroboletus satanas and looks like:


The only mushroom that can be mistaken for king boletus is bitter boletus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tylopilus_felleus


This one is not poisonous but tastes extremely bitter. Just one can spoil the whole dish. With some experience you can safely differentiate it from king boletus through finer pores and slightly pinkish sponge.

I read “bad blood” over the weekend: the story of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. Interesting read.

That was a crazy story. I watched her get interviewed by Charlie Rose. I was impressed. I think everyone wanted to believe even her. I wanted that **** to work and I didnt care at all and Im jaded.

It's a really well-written book and a pretty disheartening story for women. First, that the first billionaire female entrepreneur would turn out to be a scam artist. Second, that the old rich guys that are financing female entrepreneurs are so clearly making those decisions with their dicks rather than their brains

THIS IS NOT A POLITARD POST

I’m a member of the Supreme Court bar, so I decided to go to the arguments this morning just for entertainment value. There were two connected cases at issue, both related to sentencing enhancements. There is a federal statute related to weapons possession. If a defendant under that statute has been convicted of prior violent crimes, his sentence goes way up (eg from a ten year maximum to a fifteen year minimum). The question in the first case was whether robbery in Florida is such a violent crime when the Florida robbery statute permits a conviction with only a slight degree of force. For example, one Florida case permitted a robbery conviction where the criminal snatched a bill out of the hand of the victim and the victim tugged back. In other words, that was sufficient force to justify a robbery conviction, and such a robbery conviction could lead to a significantly enhanced federal sentence for a later-committed federal gun crime.

Under prior Supreme Court precedent, the sentencing enhancement occurs when the defendant was convicted of the prior violent crime regardless of the individual circumstances of the prior robbery. So long as there is a robbery conviction, sentence goes way up even if the defendant used almost no force at all.

The second case had to do with whether a burglary of some kind of mobile home was the burglary of a “structure” within a Tennessee statute that led to a similar enhancement.

The arguments were spirited, with hypotheticals and edge-case examples flying in every direction. My own take is that the enhancements are not likely to stand. Kagan and Gorsuch were both skeptical that robbery with minimal force would justify an enhancement.

My other hot takes: Thomas and Breyer are obviously good friends. They whisper to one another often. Ginsburg is very frail. She can’t look over the rail to see advocates and her questions are halting and somewhat tremulous. Her questions are precise and articulate, so she is all there mentally, but she is physically in rough shape. Kagan was personally warm to Kavanaugh, smiling to him and shaking his hand as soon as arguments were done. Many of the questions keyed off another Justice’s prior questions and they all seemed to generally like one another. Breyer asked a long and thoughtful question that was the best one of the second argument and tied the issues in both cases together.

All in all, a very interesting morning. I took the over to 3.5 on the number of questions Kavanaugh would ask in the first argument and won ten bucks when he asked five.

There were TV cameras out front, but I used the lawyers’ side entrance and avoided all that mess going in.

TLDR, obviously.

Baller.

Was your limo waiting as you exited?

Interesting. Has Thomas asked five questions during his entire term?

Nerd alert: I have been obsessed with the Supreme Court since I was a teenager. The story of why is not worth telling. One of the great things that came out of the internet was when the court started publishing the audio from all the oral arguments. I haven't listened to them all but I bet it is over 150.

Great TR Snagglepuss.

That was a fun read.

Very interesting post Howard.

I remember reading that Thomas asked one question one time, but he does so very very rarely. I won’t bet it, but I’ll guess that it’s currently under five.

The most active questioners today were Kagan and Gorsuch and Ginsburg.

Funniest line: Breyer said that the last time he studied state law robbery elements was his first year in law school. The DOJ lawyer quipped “we’ve looked at them somewhat more recently, your Honor.”

How many times have you seen Hamilton?

Howard,


Would Kavanaugh have been officially prepped for cases as the nominee? Or would he have had to do his study on his own? I find it odd that he would have asked questions during arguments on his first day on the job. I'd be trying to find out where the best restroom is.

Until confirmed Friday, no. But he contingently hired four law clerks and has six former clerks in other justices’ chambers. His four would have started working these cases up the moment he was confirmed, and the issues in these cases are not that hard. Piece of cake to get ready for these arguments in that time frame with these resources, even if these particular issues are strange to him, which they are likely not.

Oh, yeah: Justice sotomayor pinches Justice Gorsuch in the first argument to demonstrate a small amount of force. He looked bemused and slightly afraid.

Good post Howard, very much enjoyed.

This seems really hair splitting, my initial reaction is 'of course it's a burglary'. Be interested in more info. and your opinion.

I may have posted this before. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a young lawyer working in the public defenders' office in a large city.
Me: How are things going? Any good cases?
Lawyer: Last week I got a not guilty verdict in a burglary case.
Me: Was he guilty?
Lawyer: Not of burglary.

I did less homework on the second case, but I gathered from the argument that prior case law indicated that a vehicle would not be in the statute, without addressing mobile or floating homes.

At common law, burglary was defined as breaking and entering a dwelling house at night. The house and night elements go to the likelihood of a violent confrontation. Long ago, burglary was a felony and theft was not; the former got the death penalty while the latter did not.

IMO a mobile home should be a dwelling for these purposes, but I am less sure about a boat or an RV. One of the hypos has to do with someone putting a mattress or a pillow in the back of their car.

That's just homelessness. We all know they're not protected by the law.

Interesting, the definition of burglary is more widely drawn in the UK, hence my question.

This Fort Worth truck stop is blasting I Like Big Butts over the intercom while I poop. It's gonna be a good day.

Edit: maybe spoke too soon

Clouds of birds are slightly freakish.

Mobile homes in Tennessee most certainly are structures. Maybe not in Rhode Island, but definitely in Tennessee.

Watching Supreme Court cases is great. I've been only once to see a case a friend worked on, but I'd definitely go back.