Great rundown by a true legal ethics expert (one whom I read when teaching ethics).
“I’ll wrap up by reiterating that it would be a real stretch, even an abuse of the rules, to apply them to Liptak’s conduct here.”
Wait, I hadn’t noticed this before. The subtitle of Isgur’s book describes *itself* as witty? My unpopular take is a subtitle should not sound like a blurb you wanted someone to write & that people should stop calling themselves “witty” & “prominent” if they actually want others to think they are.
Those do seem like good questions that help to illuminate issues of rules & precedent. I def think H&T is easier on a blank slate (see Bruen) but also operates as a mechanism to enact consequential change under the guise of not doing anything revolutionary (eg Bremerton).
One underappreciated problem w the Court’s increasing reliance on history & trad’n as an exclusive mode of constitutional decisionmaking is that it’s now really hard for conlaw profs to create exam questions! We gotta supply or manufacture sufficient historical materials to provide grist for debate.
God I wish there were some word other than "higher ed," when what the author is really writing an insular piece about the practices of like 6 ivy league schools
No doubt the censorial administrators didn’t intend to nix Plato. But when you try to hide your obvious viewpoint discrimination & translate it into something resembling viewpoint neutral policies, you get this. They know they can’t just say “no icky stuff we disagree with.”
Many thanks to @lsolum.bsky.social for including this on the Legal Theory Blog!
Gobsmacking to see so clearly in Roberts' words this view of the Court as national policy czar.
"I am of the mind that a rule designed to transform a substantial swath of the nation's economy should be tested by this Court before it is presented as a fait accompli."
www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
25-5343 BEAIRD, KENDRICK J. V. UNITED STATES The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma 2 pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether Stinson v. United States, 508 U. S. 36 (1993), still correctly states the rule for the deference that courts must give the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.t. $ 924(g/(1) comports with the Second Amendment? II. Whether Stinson v. United States still accurately state the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? III. Whether 18 U.S.C. $ 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crassed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional?
SCOTUS makes a gun case about not guns
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
Really is interesting how many of the self-styled prominent law professors opposed to Eastman’s disbarment also think Trump’s EO on citizenship is totally constitutional. I’m sure it’s just a curious coincidence that that this very small group overlaps in such a significant manner.
Introduced my tween to Legally Blonde (she loves it, obvs) & watching it makes me really nostalgic for law school.
🙈
Drop your crime-fighting Catholics
I have it on good authority that 7 prominent law professors disagree with this account
Like 90% of the House is very old. How are they casually just voting in the middle of the night?!? I don’t yet consider myself one of the very old & I still can’t imagine voluntarily planning work for the wee hours.
Tbf, he did indicate he understand what it means for a “store” to be located on a “corner”
“He who lives by the sword shall prosper.”
Never gonna win NY’s electoral votes in his bid for a third term now!
I just feel like the attempt to section off “classic CL [or equity] actions” strikes me as… not a wholly persuasive way to demarcate a line. Early creators & expositors of the CL & equity were among the foremost of what I’d think of as juristocrats!
Oh sure next you’ll say torts or property is political!
I mean I guess it’s not the actual term I’m struggling with - it’s the phenomena to which you’re applying it. But maybe it’s just contestable what kind of things it applies to (eg Youngstown as JSA or not)
I’m not sure I’m tracking the designation of “juristoctats” - from the comments upthread I take it the notion is this a modern thing? But the logic of the arguments in the piece (as I read them) seem much broader?
There are worse places to sit & read about history over a glass of red wine.
The charges here arise from pointing a gun. If you’re wondering the Second Amendment & related. implications, well I’ve got something for you:
texaslawreview.org/pointing-guns/
I could see the argument being made that it interferes with the exclusive & preclusive pardon power
This is the equivalent of naming antifa as the biggest threat to America
Our Justice Department, ladies and gentlemen.
We read Pinckney’s Political Catechism - easy to digest!
A middle aged man with a receding hair line, clearly past the prime of his life but soldiering on regardless, presents at a lectern in front of a projector screen.
A middle aged man with a receding hairline, who is clearly past the prime of his life continues his presentation while sitting after becoming dizzy due to a mild panic attack. He is discussing the history of silencer regulation and recently got some polite laughter from the audience while discussing a press conference by Hiram Percy Maxim.
Yesterday, I spoke at a really excellent symposium hosted by the Colorado law review.
I discussed a paper that I coauthored with Dr. Kellen Heniford on the historical tradition of prohibiting weapons that are particularly suited for use in crime.
The paper should be on SSRN in the next month.
Excited to be in beautiful Boulder today for what is going to be a great discussion about the Second Amendment!