Lyric of the week: "Keep My Heart In Mind," Kieran Kane & @raynagellert.bsky.social, off their "Volume 4" album. www.remappingdebate.org#lyric

Not formally relaunching remappingdebate.org until 4/9 (please do subscribe now -- forever free -- here: www.remappingdebate.org/subscribe), but we thought we'd restart our Lyric of the Week feature. This week: @eliza-gilkyson.bsky.social's new "Dark Night of the Soul": www.remappingdebate.org#lyric

Clement repeatedly suggests that the dispute between the current Trump DOJ and the former prosecutors who resigned in the belief that a dismissal was improper is too complicated to resolve, but courts deal with resolving stark disputes all the time. 9/10

Clement references "accountability" when it suits his purposes, but he's unwilling to recognize that a a denial of the request to dismiss can operate as a form of public accountability, even when the Attorney General resists. 8/10

Clement studiously avoids presenting factual details, so we're left simply w dueling claims of impropriety. If he had set out facts, it would be apparent that there isn't a close balance between the strength of the competing positions or hardship in reaching a conclusion. 7/10

Clement fails to take into account how extraordinary it is for the Trump DOJ to have done what it has done, and thus he misinterprets why there aren't more cases denying a motion to dismiss on public interest grounds. 6/10

Clement omits key info, as when describing history of rule governing dismissals. He cites to former Chief Justice Rehnquist dissent, but doesn't mention that Rehnquist had the opposite view from Clement's as to the "principal" reason for the leave-of-court requirement. 5/10

Clement doesn't grapple with the substance of the contrary view: that principal object of amendment to Rule was to "guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants." 4/10

Clement says that "principal" purpose of judiciary re proposed dismissals is protection of liberty. (See 4/10, next.) But, even if he's right, the word "principal" is doing a lot of work: it allows him to ignore other purposes like vindicating the public interest. 3/10

remappingdebate.org's article extensively annotates Clement's brief. Here are some of the key points. Clement sets up exaggerated versions of the opposing position in order to knock them down. That's known as a "straw man" argument. 2/10

Opponents say "fear of being sued" would cause shareholders not to want to serve on boards. What they mean is that disclosure will give NYers a better sense of whether they've been discriminated against. The argument just underlines the need for the bill. 3/3

Not standing w majority of your Council colleagues nor w 73% of Manhattanites supporting coop disclosure? You're no progressive leader. Disqualifying for @keithpowersnyc.bsky.social (running for BP) &
Julie Menin (harboring hopes of Speakership). gothamist.com/news/many-ma...

Appalling.