It might simultaneously be true that Republicans should wait to fill RBG’s seat because the election is near; that it is an act of stunning hypocrisy to fill it after refusing to act on Garland; and that, if the politics were reversed, Democrats would have done the same thing.
I should add, in response to comments, that by "Democrats would have done the same thing," I was referring to pushing forward now with a nominee with so little time before the election. /1
I don't have a strong sense of what Dems would have done with the 2016 equivalent of Garland -- would they have just voted him down, vs. not held a vote, for example. (But I also don't see a lot of difference between those two options.) /2
The flipped hypo would be something like this. Imagine Justice Scalia had died 45 days before the 2016 election, and the Senate was Democratic. All the polls suggest a Republican will be elected in 45 days, and the Senate may flip R. /3
All the big legal issues that your side cares most about -- abortion rights, affirmative action, LGBT rights, the environment -- are all up for grabs. Do you push forward a nominee now, ensuring those rights? Or do you risk them and let the next Prez (likely an R) fill the seat?
I think the proper thing to do, so close to the election, is to risk it and let the next Prez fill the seat, even if it means all those rights are lost. But I tend to be doubtful that is what would actually happen in that scenario. My sense, at least. /end
• • •
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.