Like, I don’t know gang. Maybe prawfs are more powerless in many cases than we like to talk about.

I think one thing that drives me crazy is prawfs are treated as unbridled free agents. Like we could just fix any problems that exist if we just got our heads out of the sand. But if we’ve learned anything, it’s that we exist in thickly articulated institutions with path dependencies.

(Going to ignore the Kreis comment.)

Yeah, I think it can be done! You just point out criticism and then offer very mild curbing when they get out of line. You shouldn’t “shame” someone, one of your colleagues, for disagreeing with you.

"Lincolnian constitutionalism" lol

guys you can't claim Lincoln when you're on the side of the Redeemers

I’m sorry, that was so weird when he called you Tony.

“Hey there Bo-Jack”

I am just enough of a chaos agent with technology of any sort that me blocking you is either (a) a harmless error or (b) a sign that we do not mix well. And you may never know which!

I had the whole @lpeblog.bsky.social blocked accidentally a few weeks ago, this happens with some frequency.

Who dat?

I mean me? I don’t shame my colleagues. And when I disagree with them—see the Vladeck thing last week—it comes from a place of respect.

This understanding is slipping through fingers the last few weeks

Once again I am begging my fellow legal academics to remember that judges are the objects of our study, not our bosses, priests, or revered elders.

Does this seem like a question of shame??

Kurt Lash is lashing out again

a man is making a surprised face with the word what written below him ALT: a man is making a surprised face with the word what written below him

This is shocking news!

The spectacle of adoration for Clarence Thomas’s partisan ramblings in Austin from conservatives lawyers, judges, and scholars is just very cringe.

Motion for a @bradwendel.bsky.social bat signal when legal ethics issues arise!

The NYT and the 'Shadow Papers' Thoughts on the reporting

I thought Jack’s treatment of the NYT here flowed from a rather uncharitable read. Read in another light (or in a different frame of mind), I think his complaints melt quite quickly.

Wow, Philly seems great! Never spent any real time here before.

How Ideology Reinforced Juristocratic Thinking on the Shadow Docket And in what sense is John Roberts an institutionalist?

Something about the NYT discoveries over the weekend made me think of things at the intersection of my work, @stevevladeck.bsky.social, and @corinneblalock.bsky.social. Here's a new Substack. If you get the chance Corinne has a similar piece coming out soon that really inspired me to write this.

Hopping on Amtrak to Philly for a surprise that’s so exciting, I could die.

Iroh with my baby boy. He loves and protects him.

Please consider pushing for legislation protecting dogs breeds from housing discrimination. Our Iroh has a very hard time finding a home because of how he looks, but he is a sweet boy. And even though he is not human, we shouldn’t penalize the people who lessen nonhuman suffering in the world.

We have a pitbull. We rescued him from the dessert when he was one month old and on death’s door. He has a good life and has never been a threat to anyone, including our child. Legislation protecting *us* his owners who lessened nonhuman suffering from rental discrimination is a no-brainer.

Lot of time to lash out, crash state capacity, and ruin American standing abroad. The two examples JB gives were, of course, cowed legalists. Kind of uncharted territory in the mad king era.

Vibes

Jesus Christ, you wanna see an octogenarian get glazed by the masses, type in “Clarence Thomas” on the search bar on X some Saturday night.

Remarkable how degraded X is at this point. If you try and follow more than 2 people you get a client error code and the app crashes. It is just held together by duck tape.