And to say, effectively, that we can’t judge a harm that hasn’t yet occurred but might not (but almost assuredly will because why else would this be happening) is a wild proposition.

I’m sure Texas and Nevada courts will have no problem adjudicating those theoretical harms. /s

Maffei is exhausting. It’s as if the Court is saying “you can leave but you should want to stay because we’re better positioned to treat everyone fairly and that’s what everyone wants”

When of course that’s not what the people who want to leave want. That’s why they want to leave?!

And to somehow equivocate Musk’s dislike and distaste for Delaware’s willingness to tell him no and that he has to follow rules in a world where he’s used to writing them to Chancellor McCormick writing an opinion following case law is so mindnumbing it hurts.

That maybe, just maybe, controllers can’t just strip their controlled companies for value and personal gain and that maybe we say that you do have obligations to think ever so slightly about not your own interests, alone, in a vacuum.

But even if we ignore just the generally poor discussion of the Court and the absolutely glaring lack of understanding of the nuances of law and politics in this state, the Times still manages to miss the point of decisions like Moelis and Tornetta:

I also find it interesting that the same people criticizing out of state voices in the legislative fight last year are the ones serving up only out of state voices for quotes, with the exception of former Chancellor Chandler.

Ignore the fact that they pulled quotes from individuals all on one particular side of this issue, the title implies that we sought this fight and was dragged willingly into it, when in reality the Court’s decisions were bizarrely reframed out of enforcing long existing law to culture war fights.

Full opinion. Majority by Judge Ginsburg, concurrence in part and in judgment by Chief Judge Srinivasan
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Justice Alito, for example, demonstrated his tech-savviness by asking “Let's say YouTube were a newspaper, how much would it weigh?”

These are clearly the folks I want deciding this important issues. Not that Congress is much better but at least they’re theoretically held accountable.

It also is concerning because it opens up another opportunity for SCOTUS to hear yet another internet case because the two last term went so well. 🙄 As I listened to those arguments, the nine seemed almost baffled that the internet is complex and vast.

And that doesn’t even begin to address the mental health aspects of this discussion.