Yes but if we’re talking about what’s ethical it can’t be a purely subjective question right? If a lawyer brings an argument that’s objectively frivolous, it doesn’t matter if they think it rocks.
To expand on THIS:
A quality of constitutional adjudication is that there will always be reasonable disagreement about whether the Court got it right. That's just part of the whole pluralism thing. Democratic constitutionalism therefore requires that people be able to accept...
There’s a tendency on the right now, as the Court is on the ropes, to shrivel the legal profession inwards as a mode of self-protection, which comes from a place of weakness rather than strength. This is the opposite of how the conservative legal movement came to a place of prominence
Would be super healthy for the legal profession if it became opposed to the public as the keeper of courts’ secrets
Suppose the court is behaving in a way that already undermines public trust. In that case, might disclosure of facts related to that behavior be useful to restore such trust?
Agreed. The problem is cases where the belief that it’s unlawful has no legitimate foundation other than policy preference or political ideology.
*rather than as
Yes, all remedies are invented at some time or another. But I see the West Virginia version of MQD as an exercise of political discretion than as a legal rule, so inventing a new remedy to articulate it cannot be justified. yalelawjournal.org/essay/the-bi...
What are the legal ethics of a Court inventing a novel remedy to stop a policy they disagree with?
Seventeenth Century England, man. Wow. What a time.
Come check out this webinar next Wednesday on my recently published coedited volume on Comparative Administrative Law! The webinar will take place on April 29, between 12:30-2:00pm, EDT. Link to register is in the below flyer and here: lnkd.in/g9Z6s-E2.
Thanks so much Kali!
Move to Los Angeles, maybe get some crystals
I talked to @polphilpod.bsky.social about reactionary centrism as a demand to embrace some magic amount of intolerance in order to win—and why that's dangerous.
Wall St. is either very gullible, or else desperate for Trump to succeed in destroying constitutional democracy. Or both.
He’s running.
Go Ephs!
Might be the only way to ride this one out, frankly.
Boastful Quaker Oats ad, Chicago 1891
Usually I just say, “it is the teaching of our ancestors, whereof the mind of man runneth not to the contrary” and provide a “see generally” cite to Coke’s institutes
Rümeysa Öztürk. Text on the card reads: “Rümeysa Öztürk, Tufts grad arrested by ICE agents last year, returns to Turkey”
Breaking news: Tufts University graduate Rümeysa Öztürk, who was arrested by masked immigration agents last year, has returned to her home country of Turkey, citing the "state-imposed violence and hostility" she said she experienced in the United States. trib.al/7GKyEiz
Twitter: Where we stick to the merits.
I need to stop messing around (dropping banger after banger on Bluesky) and write this book.
“There is a long history and tradition in Anglo-American law of creating state religions in defiance of woke popery.”
New draft posted to SSRN by John Eastman, Kurt Lash, Randy Barnett, and Ilan Wurman:
Why the Establishment Clause Does Not Bar the President from Establishing a Church of America in Defiance of Woke Popery.
Now let me get back to my spurious arguments for eliminating birthright citizenship.
A great way to restore trust in universities would be to never host any event like this.
