I also value highly your analysis and interpretation of Scotus issues. On another Substack there are considerations galore for Court expansion and reform. Many recent decisions actually seem in conflict with the actual Constitution. Thank you.
I guess I'm not your target audience, but FYi I bought a subscription because I like your written newsletters. I have 0 interest in videos or chat. If you wanted to add bonus features to thank me (which you obviously don't need to!), I would want them to be more written newsletters.
I am third answer about formats. I like the current format in part because I read on a computer and not usually on my phone. I.am actually opposed to videos because the words can be lost in the viewing of the person speaking them. AND as celeste k says above one can come back to the written word as many times as one likes. My partner who is a lawyer refuses to listen to videos and always wants the documents from cases to read.
Your Substack blog is the best commentary available. I can’t tell you how much I have learned reading about the Court and the law. If only I could take a law course from you.
My experiences and observation are that different people tend to prefer or rely on different mixes of communication and information and/or mis- an dis-information channels than others. I anticipate and hope that by adding new channels One First will become more effective for a wider range of subscribers than before. I find, for example, that observing facial impressions and other aspects of body language when someone is expressing opinions or providing explanations can add to (or subtract from) their impact and credibility compared to if they are available only in a written document. For example, when you watch Secretary Hegseth fulminating, it reinforces the finding of how dangerous, idiotic and unfit for office he is, as compared to when you read his words without their audible tone or visual cues.
Thanks for all you do. The Supreme Court has become much more interesting to me through your explanations. You are appreciated!
I also value highly your analysis and interpretation of Scotus issues. On another Substack there are considerations galore for Court expansion and reform. Many recent decisions actually seem in conflict with the actual Constitution. Thank you.
You permit Yankees fans to subscribe? Hmmm. (Thanks for all the amazing commentary and analysis.)
I guess I'm not your target audience, but FYi I bought a subscription because I like your written newsletters. I have 0 interest in videos or chat. If you wanted to add bonus features to thank me (which you obviously don't need to!), I would want them to be more written newsletters.
I concur. Videos and live chats are not my thing. I prefer to read, and then re-read as needed for greater understanding.
I am third answer about formats. I like the current format in part because I read on a computer and not usually on my phone. I.am actually opposed to videos because the words can be lost in the viewing of the person speaking them. AND as celeste k says above one can come back to the written word as many times as one likes. My partner who is a lawyer refuses to listen to videos and always wants the documents from cases to read.
Thank YOU!
Saying I depend on "One First" to understand what's going on in the SC is an understatement. Your analysis is indispensable. Thank you.
I get twice as much education by reading and listening to you, Professor Vladek and the input from Karen and daughters is invaluable, many thanks
Your Substack blog is the best commentary available. I can’t tell you how much I have learned reading about the Court and the law. If only I could take a law course from you.
My experiences and observation are that different people tend to prefer or rely on different mixes of communication and information and/or mis- an dis-information channels than others. I anticipate and hope that by adding new channels One First will become more effective for a wider range of subscribers than before. I find, for example, that observing facial impressions and other aspects of body language when someone is expressing opinions or providing explanations can add to (or subtract from) their impact and credibility compared to if they are available only in a written document. For example, when you watch Secretary Hegseth fulminating, it reinforces the finding of how dangerous, idiotic and unfit for office he is, as compared to when you read his words without their audible tone or visual cues.
“Being me”!!!!!!!!!!!! This is already my favorite read of the day and I just started.