HIGHLY recommended.

I've railed about the problems in legal commentary for years. Scott Greenfield manages to say perfectly in a few paragraphs what I have been trying to say imperfectly for years.
"Years ago, the hope was that the internet would democratize the law, enable anyone to have access to statutes and caselaw so they could understand something as critical to our lives as law just like a lawyer. In a way it happened, thought not necessarily a good way."

Oh my.
"Had the case been about pretty much any other legal issue than abortion, the refusal to enjoin not only wouldn’t have been controversial, but would likely have been unanimous. It was a technically correct decision."
"Legal pundits prone to hysteria, not to mention flagrant dishonesty, have twisted the understanding of non-lawyers... as to what happened and why."
"None of this is remotely accurate, even though this is the story being told to non-lawyers who lack the legal acumen to realize they’ve been manipulated to believe nonsense...."
"[I]t’s an objectively false claim of the decision, demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of the rationale for the ruling. This does not mean the ruling was right or good, but it was not what [the commentator being referenced] thinks it is."
"The irony here is that this Supreme Court, which we’re reliably told was going to turn the nation into a theocracy and women into handmaidens, has done a fairly decent job of judging. [citing examples of election lawsuits and trans rights]"

See also: dilanesper.substack.com/p/the-supreme-…
"But these rulings are spun as distractions rather than, you know, rulings, to calm us before the inevitable sky falls. And fall it will, we’re authoritatively told. Any day now. Any day. Annny daaaaayyyyy."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Dilan Esper

Dilan Esper Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dilanesper

13 Sep
How careerism in the media is ruining our public discourse.

A couple of points I didn't make in the post because it was long enough as it was:

1. Television punditry is dominated by careerism as well. You rarely see liberal heterodoxy on CNN or MSNBC, and you certainly rarely see conservative heterodoxy on Fox News.
2. Careerism plays out in commentary as well as in selection of stories. For instance, how many times have you heard that if Biden's $3.2t reconciliation doesn't pass his presidency will have "failed"? That's the party talking, through commentators, to Manchin and Sinema.
Read 5 tweets
12 Sep
Important North Dakota Supreme Court case on testilying by police. Cops pulled a driver over for a broken license plate light, but the cops' bodycam video showed the light was working. The court throws out the conviction. 1/ #appellatetwitter law.justia.com/cases/north-da…
The key legal point here is on standard of review. One of the reasons police perjury is so common is that when a trial court makes a credibility finding, it cannot be overturned on appeal. The trial court saw the witnesses testify and gets to judge credibility. 2/
But the problem is trial courts always find cops credible. Indeed, I assume that in many jurisdictions, prosecutors- who need cops' testimony to secure convictions- would put incredible pressure on a criminal court judge who regularly found police testimony not credible. 3/
Read 6 tweets
11 Sep
This looks cute and I look forward to reading it.

But I it's a mistake to talk about extensions, even regularly granted ones, as a norm in litigation practice. Litigators who rely on extensions and don't anticipate workloads to meet deadlines eventually commit malpractice. 1/
Extensions are ALWAYS a function of (1) whether you have a jerk on the other side of a case, (2) whether your side has acted like a jerk in litigating the case (either you, some other lawyer, or your client), (3) whether your judge is a jerk, and (4) whether you deserve one. 2/
Notice what I listed last. That's right, there are situations where you don't really deserve extensions and get them, and situations where you acted in a professional manner and get screwed. 3/
Read 13 tweets
30 Aug
Another meta-comment on Berlatsky: one of the dumbest tics in online discourse is the argument that the only reason one could possibly advocate something is because they want to do it or do do it. (E.g., "Berlatsky must be a pedophile because he advocates X".) 1/
We ALL know this isn't true. For instance, I advocate that many violent criminals should get out of prison once they age to a point where they are a less of a danger. I don't do this because I have committed violent crimes or want to. I just think it is the correct position. 2/
But for some reason, and only with respect to people they don't like, people argue that, e.g., the only reason someone might take an unpopular position on age of consent, or sexual harassment law, or other controversial issues is because they are themselves a criminal. 3/
Read 4 tweets
30 Aug
Things I bet you didn't know existed in 2021: the Mississippi Supreme Court DENIES a woman a divorce because her evidentiary showing didn't constitute "habitual cruel and inhuman treatment" 1/ #appellatetwitter law.justia.com/cases/mississi…
Trigger warning, as I am about to quote some of the stuff that the Mississippi Supreme Court held was insufficient to justify a divorce decree. 2/
"Kemily testified that the couple’s marital problems began as early as their honeymoon when Kelvin got upset with Kemily while talking to her sister on the phone, and the couple had a disagreement about her giving food to a homeless person." 3/
Read 11 tweets
30 Aug
This piece by @JeremyStahl about Democratic activists not wanting to raise the issue of Feinstein's age in the recall is quite good, but it misses one HUGE reason for this.

You have to understand careerism in politics. 1/

Incumbents in major offices have IMMENSE power in American politics. They control powerful staffs which do a lot of hiring and firing. They also control large bases of actors within the party apparatus.

And the fundamental fact about politics is that EVERYONE needs a job. 2/
The result is "nobody can go after the King unless it is successful". This manifests itself in lots of ways.

For instance, ever notice when there's a scandal, at first, nobody in the politician's party calls for a resignation, and then one or two do and the floodgates open? 3/
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!