Alright - back with a continuation of this thread.
I've parsed @neal_katyal's very not-good NYT op-ed on the Flynn dismissal.
Now I want to explore another strange angle - why, exactly, was @LawProfButler willing to sign on to the anti-Barr letter?
I've parsed @neal_katyal's very not-good NYT op-ed on the Flynn dismissal.
Now I want to explore another strange angle - why, exactly, was @LawProfButler willing to sign on to the anti-Barr letter?
This tweet supporting the other ~2000 DOJ alumni might well seem innocuous - but if you're at all familiar with Professor Butler's scholarship, it's straight-up bizarre. 
Butler is a former federal prosecutor-turned-AGGRESSIVE critic of the criminal justice system.
In one notable law review article, he argued for race-based jury nullification - that there is a "moral responsibility of black jurors to emancipate some guilty black outlaws."
In one notable law review article, he argued for race-based jury nullification - that there is a "moral responsibility of black jurors to emancipate some guilty black outlaws."
And Butler understands the incentives of federal prosecutors - to lock people up for as long as you can.
He speaks from experience - he "went to try to change the system from the inside," but the experience of being a federal prosecutor changed him instead.
He speaks from experience - he "went to try to change the system from the inside," but the experience of being a federal prosecutor changed him instead.
This is the letter he signed on to.
I have no earthly idea how to reconcile the arguments in this letter with Professor Butler's scholarship.
As I discussed in the Katyal thread - DC Circuit law is clear that federal judges have no discretion to deny DOJ's motion here.
I have no earthly idea how to reconcile the arguments in this letter with Professor Butler's scholarship.
As I discussed in the Katyal thread - DC Circuit law is clear that federal judges have no discretion to deny DOJ's motion here.
But perhaps @LawProfButler could explain further.
Caveats, obviously - Butler is a genuinely excellent professor, brilliant guy, and an intellectually provocative legal scholar (even where I disagree with him).
What gives, though?
Caveats, obviously - Butler is a genuinely excellent professor, brilliant guy, and an intellectually provocative legal scholar (even where I disagree with him).
What gives, though?
