Cathy Gellis 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (154) comment rss

  • On the post: Something Good The Supreme Court Could Do: Finally Fix The First Amendment Problems With Platform Liability For Copyright Infringement

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2025 @ 05:38am

    We addressed this

    And how is someone to know if it's protected or not if there's no adjudication? Granted there's some that's obviously protected but SCOTUS didn't say that you couldn't pressure the middleman to go after only obviously protected speech. Especially since Vullo relies on Bantam Books, that idea is already baked in that the relative legality of the user speech doesn't bear on whether you can squeeze the intermediary.

  • On the post: Policy Building Blocks: Preliminary Injunctive Relief

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 19 Aug, 2025 @ 03:55pm

    The point

    The point is what I said at the end, to get everyone up to speed on how these things are supposed to work so that when I discuss specific injunctions in future posts I don't have to start from scratch and explain the basics. I can just point to this post for those unfamiliar.

  • On the post: Step Aside, Schumer. The Nation Can’t Survive With You In Charge.

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2025 @ 07:53am

    There's no such thing as TDS

    There's no such thing as "Trump Derangement Syndrome," only alarm at our failing democracy. And there's nothing left that we can write about that isn't completely affected by what is happening on the political stage. I look forward to being able to get back to just complaining about copyright, and how bad law there just makes us more vulnerable to autocratic threat. But right now we're not just vulnerable to it but actively suffering from it and in a fight for our Republic's life (and in many instances also our own). If we're going to fight for the things we usually fight for, this is now the battleground on which to engage.

  • On the post: Step Aside, Schumer. The Nation Can’t Survive With You In Charge.

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2025 @ 06:49am

    It was a bad choice but

    a) It's not clear that the analysis about what Trump could do during a shutdown is right b) It ignores the political price the GOP would pay c) It abandoned all leverage to maybe get a deal d) It seems to have abandoned all leverage ever in the future, because you can't win a game of chicken when everyone knows you'll fold e) It abandoned any opportunity to message in a way to rally the public to their side, and instead made sure to do the opposite f) And then after, everything Schumer has said has shown that he does not understand the moment. And like I said in the post, even if he was right, kneecapping his party when it is trying to take a stand is wrong. How he handled this was atrocious and the real issue, not whether he was right.

  • On the post: It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2025 @ 12:16pm

    Found your alt...

    Senator Schumer, don't you have a vote to go tank?

  • On the post: It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2025 @ 08:55am

    Did you read the post?

    I'm not moving the goalposts. You are just ignoring what I actually said. You start preparing them now so that there can be a day when they can be officially pursued.

  • On the post: It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2025 @ 08:53am

    Why on Earth not?

    The idea that Democrats need permission from the GOP to start advocating for what they think is necessary is silly. Especially when it's that advocacy itself that may get the votes needed to be able to finally let them fly.

  • On the post: It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2025 @ 08:51am

    That's what I was saying

    I thought I was pretty clear - get busy talking it up and drafting it up. Even just doing THAT is meaningful and necessary if we're going to get to the point where it can be pursued officially.

  • On the post: It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2025 @ 07:33am

    Did you read the piece?

    Me: [1800+ words about why it's not pointless] You: It's pointless.

  • On the post: It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2025 @ 10:25pm

    Yes, but

    Vance is bad too, but he doesn't have the cult of personality that Trump does so I think a little less of an ability to do so much harm. And we also could impeach him too. First, even!

  • On the post: It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2025 @ 08:12pm

    That's not what I said

    I didn't say they should be officially brought. But we need to start the process of getting them ready.

  • On the post: Dear Democrats: It Would Be Nice If You Could Lead, And Not Off A Cliff

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2025 @ 11:21am

    Cheney is fine

    I actually think the Cheney inclusion was good, on (at least) two levels: (1) rhetorically it should matter to be able to say, "Even SHE'S against this, so why aren't you?", and (2) you win an election by collecting the most voters, and collecting alienated Republicans is a way to include them in your total and not in the opponent's. The issue with Democrats is that they are being way too milquetoasty on everything else. They should be in the business of opposing Trump, and that's the job they don't seem to be doing on the whole. The Cheney issue is actually a rare example to the contrary. It's not bad that they stand up for similar things that she stands for. The bigger issue is that right now they seem to be standing for very little, or at least not what really needs to be stood for right now.

  • On the post: No Personal Liability For DOGE Yet, But With Two More Lawsuits We Get Closer

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2025 @ 06:59am

    And it's not even the same thing

    With Jack Smith there was at least an enabling statute. Whereas with DOGE there is nothing from Congress that empowers them. (One of the EOs cites one law, but DOGE's behavior does not comport with the limited authority it describes.)

  • On the post: No Personal Liability For DOGE Yet, But With Two More Lawsuits We Get Closer

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2025 @ 06:56am

    One step at a time

    We are not at the crossroads you are describing, and there's nothing to be gained by pretending we are.

  • On the post: At Last, DOGE And Musk Are Finally Named In A Lawsuit, Albeit “Officially”

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2025 @ 10:28pm

    Sort of?

    Big Cases Bot is a Bluesky account that tracks docket updates on Courtlistener once it is told to go monitor the case. Then it posts links to the new filings.

  • On the post: When It’s Not Just A Coup But A CFAA Violation Too

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2025 @ 11:20pm

    No

    You aren't correct.

  • On the post: When It’s Not Just A Coup But A CFAA Violation Too

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2025 @ 05:29pm

    SCOTUS

    You might as well try. I don't think it's a given that SCOTUS would reject it. (a) As far as the CFAA is concerned, even Thomas thought that it should be broader, apparently (IIRC... need to look at Van Buren again.) (b) The contentious issue is the appointment of DOGE, and that's getting litigated, and probably all the way up to SCOTUS anyway. (c) I'm not sure even the Trumpists on the Court like Elon. (d) There's also something to be said for the deterrence factor that the litigation could have, especially for his minions, and especially if it arrives in volume, which it could.

  • On the post: When It’s Not Just A Coup But A CFAA Violation Too

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2025 @ 05:23pm

    Ah

    I see the problem: you think that we elected him king. Sorry, that wasn't the case. He was elected President, an office whose powers are circumscribed by Article II and statute. And they don't include what he's done.

  • On the post: When It’s Not Just A Coup But A CFAA Violation Too

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2025 @ 05:18pm

    Maybe...

    In the United States Code that you've imagined maybe Trump can do this. But per the US Code here on this plane of existence, he cannot.

  • On the post: When It’s Not Just A Coup But A CFAA Violation Too

    Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2025 @ 01:36pm

    I think you'll find...

    That I addressed those concerns. Sure, one never knows. But it's a plausible claim that can at least get through the courthouse door and even survive dismissal. That alone makes it an important tool to use.

Next >>