I would like to respond, in one place, to the talking points comparing Israel to Hamas, or saying Israel (or the IDF) is worse. Israel has problems, and feel free to challenge me, but this false equivalency prevents peace and a solution Israel and Palestine can accept. 1 1. Civilians. Hamas has in its charter to kill Jews. This was on horrible display. Hamas also places weapons in hospitals and residential buildings to sacrifice people to make Israel look bad. Israel tries to avoid killing civilians. Not perfectly, but as a policy.

This is more interesting - in terms of the legal elements - than the Johnny Depp defamation case. A quick thread on whether a lawsuit is viable, without getting into the (important) politics of the issue. (1)

https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1632163031906934785

Defamation requires publication (met), falsify, and defamatory (met bc calling for the abolition of a group of people will ruin one’s reputation). So the hard, open legal issue is whether publications have made false statements about what Daily Wire host Knowles said at CPAC. (2)

A thread on some concerning trends in education - from a law professor who loves her students, loves the law, and loves teaching students to read and to think better. I would love to hear other profs’ views on whether you agree or disagree, but it’s a sensitive topic: (1) The perfect storm of schools needing to compete for students and echo-chamber effects (and technology) is leading to students increasingly less prepared in critical reading, writing, and thinking- process-based values that can be applied regardless of the ultimate viewpoint. (2)

This is going to be a thread on ideology versus intellectualism, efforts to eliminate the LSAT and the bar, the way people are reading the Dobbs opinion, and my thoughts about what is happening on Twitter. Buckle up. (1) In a scene in "Chernobyl," a scientist tells a Communist Party leader that things are bad. He says everything will be fine. She says she's a nuclear physicist. He says, "I worked in a show factory. And now I'm in charge. To the workers of the world." (2)

My last tweets on Dobbs. I want to do a thread on "deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition." It is alarming people. I will explore why Alito used that framework and the pros and cons of using it so you can consider what you think is a good approach. (1) In a case about whether there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide, called Glucksburg (1997), the Court noted that to find a right that is not explicit in the text of the Constitution (using substantive due process), the right needs to be "deeply rooted..." (2)

I do want to address this in a thread. It is a fair, sincere question. So, the free exercise standard articulated in Smith is not super protective of religion. It used to be Sherbert, where anything that burdened religion was subject to strict scrutiny. Now we have Smith. (1)

https://twitter.com/TAA_47/status/1521891450266525697

Smith held that neutral, generally applicable laws are fine, even if they burden religion. Scalia wrote Smith, and it’s less protective of religion. It harmonizes the free exercise & Establishment clauses. You have to show unfair treatment to win a free exercise claim. (2)

Let's talk about whether overturning Roe is or is not "democratic." This is an important (and seemingly misunderstood) topic. I have a few thoughts about this that point in different directions. Thank you for indulging this thread. I'm interested to hear your views. (1) Finding a constitutional right is, in a sense, not democratic. The court overturns the majority (either state or federal) because of a countermajoritarian fundamental right. We need the Court for this, but it must have a justifiable process for interpreting the Constitution. (2)