A few random and unhelpful thoughts on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, a thread.
FWIW, I don't know Judge Barrett well, although we've met. She was a fellow at @gwlaw in 2001-02, during my first year on the faculty there. I spent at least some time with her back then, and I recall her as very impressive. I recall her as super smart and very personable.
Of course, I realize that a lot of readers couldn't care less whether she is smart or personable. On Twitter, some may be annoyed by even mentioning those things. I gather many want to know how she will vote: the right way (as they see it) or the wrong way (as they they see it).
On that front, I have no special expertise. However, I haven't seen anyone suggest she would be a swing vote on any foreseeable issue. And that's my working assumption, that she'll be a reliable conservative vote, moving the Court's 5th vote in many cases to Kavanaugh or Gorsuch.
I assume the result is the most conservative court we will have seen in almost a century, although of course it's hard to compare eras. Either way, very conservative.
It may be moderated somewhat by three factors. First, the Chief may take big cases for himself and write more narrowly than the other 5 conservatives want. Second, I think Gorsuch will sometimes vote on the liberal side in big cases.
And third, I suspect (although I don't know) that Kavanaugh is influenced more by an institutional sense than others, not quite at the Chief level but in that direction, which may matter in some cases. But still, that's a very conservative court on which that matters. /end
There's a twitter rule that when you formally end a thread with "/end", you must immediately come up with more thoughts. So here are some more random and unhelpful thoughts:
With recent nominations, there has been a lot of criticism that all of the Justices went to a small number of academic institutions. If you cared about that, then note that Barrett didn't go to Ivies, etc. She could have, no doubt, but didn't.
Also, from a resume perspective, this is a very traditional pick. Barrett comes as a Court of Appeals judge (like 8 of 9 Justices on recent court); former law professor (like 3 of 9 Justices on recent court); and former SCOTUS clerk (like 5 of 9 Justices on recent court).
Also, for anyone who cares about legal scholarship, I would guess that having Barrett on the Court will fuel more public law scholarship on originalism (whether you like it or not, it's harder to ignore when three Justices are explicit adopters of it).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a really wild result—a finding that, in a simulated case, federal judges don't follow the law but that law students do—but I wonder if there is an explanation the authors don't identify. 🧵 journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.11…
In the hypothetical case, you are a judge on the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and you are deciding a defendant’s appeal of his conviction for war crimes by the ICTY’s trial chamber.
As a judge, you have to decide if there was enough evidence that the defendant aided and abetted the war crime. You had some cases saying what the standard was (either high or low), and facts making the defendant more or less sympathetic.
It's relatively easy for law schools to create a culture that values teaching, as professors interact w/students every day & get teaching evaluations. But a common question for law professors, & especially associate deans: How can you create a culture that values scholarship? 🧵
No easy answers, but I suspect the biggest thing is by example; showing that it's valued. A few (among many) possible examples:
(1) By the Dean and Associate Dean attending the faculty workshop. Leadership being involved in the scholarly process sends a big signal of values.
(2) Having the school's website and social media accounts flag new scholarship by the faculty. Again, it's a signal of values; we think this is important.
I not a grand constitutional theorist, and I don't really believe in grand constitutional theory, but @espinsegall asks an interesting question on his latest podcast: If you're a non-originalist, what is the best argument for originalism?
🧵
It seems to me that the best argument runs something like this. If the Constitution were easy to amend—such that our fundamental law reflected current clear majority views of public opinion—most people would be originalists.
In that hypothetical, the Constitution would tend to reflect current views, and it would seem pretty natural to interpret the Constitution based on backward-looking questions like original public meaning.
Among the new demands issued by student "Berkeley Law for Palestine" group after Chemerinsky/Fisk dinner: Correct Erwin Chemerinsky's understanding of the First Amendment.
Some UC Assistant General Counsel goes to library, gets First Amendment book for an expert's view...
Or perhaps instead looks for a law school course to study the matter more in depth this summer..... law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/c…
NOTABLE: Google announces dramatic changes to its "location history" function that should nullify all geofence warrants going forward—and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the point. Code is law, as they say.
(h/t ) blog.google/products/maps/… fourthamendment.com
As I read this, Google will no longer keep geolocation data even for the subset of users that turn on location history. The data will only be stored locally. Geofence warrants are used when the govt has no suspects, to get some leads, so this will likely defeat the technique.
There's a very important surveillance story to be written on how Google came to this decision. I hope we'll get to read it, I'd be very interested to know.
I'm reading the newly-released transcript of Twitter's proceedings before Judge Howell on Twitter's compliance with the warrant for Trump's account. Here are thoughts as I go. dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/file…
First, this should be good. The lawyers are experienced lawyers from WilmerHale, and Judge Howell knows more about the Stored Communications Act than any other district judge. This is no one's first rodeo.
p. 6, Howell is starting off frustrated with Twitter.