I'm not one to defend Trump, but I disagree w/the many claiming that Trump said there would be no more elections if he wins. I hear him more as just saying he'll do such a fantastic job he'll save the country so the stakes of future elections will be a lot lower.
Responses to this tweet are sad. As my followers know, I despise Trump, and I criticize him almost every day and have since 2015. He is an authoritarian, and he flirts with fascism; I urge you to vote against him and save America.
But that doesn't change this clip! Trump says horrible stuff every day; we don't need to pretend that every word out of his mouth is equally horrible. Don't lose the plotline, folks.
Incidentally, if you are horrified by my reaction — at the concept of actually watching the video to see what the video contains, and not just running with your tribe's chosen message — you are invited to unfollow me, or, if you don't follow me, mute or block me. I won't mind.
As an aside, after condemning Trump for the last 9 years, it's pretty amusing to see replies that I am shilling for Trump (apparently to get a job in the Trump admin? Lol).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This viral video, and the comments to it, brings up a common misunderstanding. No, the police don't have to tell you why they're detaining or arresting you. And no, they don't have to read you Miranda rights if they arrest you. They just need probable cause. That's it.
Ok, the receipts. First, whether the police have to tell you why you're being arrested came up in a 2005 Supreme Court decision, Devenpeck v. Alford. Here's Justice Scalia writing for the 8-0 court, concluding, nope, no such requirement. tile.loc.gov/storage-servic…
Second, Miranda. There is no abstract right to Miranda warnings. Instead, SCOTUS has said that it's a violation of Miranda if an officer interrogates someone in custody, gets a statement from them, and then uses it in court against them.
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.