I mean, this was in fact how Tolkien and his wife conducted their romance.
I mean, this was in fact how Tolkien and his wife conducted their romance.
This could lead directly into the valuable discussion that the founders really had profound disagreements about the nature of the union.
In other words, the mid 20th century liberal story that state compact theory was just a stalking horse for defending slavery and segregation looks a little bit less credible than it did 20 years ago.
And it’s important to remember that Jeffersons and Madison‘s first invocation of state rights came in the context of the alien and sedition acts.
I’m not endorsing your view necessarily, but the key supreme court case saying that states couldn’t use habeas corpus against federal imprisonment is remarkably unconvincing.
Baude characterizes himself as defending originalism on positive grounds, so I think he would not rest his defense of Swift on natural law grounds, though he does believe in unwritten law.
And I think Suzanne Sherry, long before Baude, also argued Erie was decided wrongly.
And there’s an alternative take by Baude which posits the existence of unwritten law and argues against the Holmesian position that this is a metaphysical extravagance.
Yes. The Upside Constitution provides the theory behind this charge. But all the conservative theories agree Erie misread the RDA.
Greve’s account praises federal courts for creating a commercial jurisprudence that prevents states favoring insiders.
(Sorry for the typo I’m dictating this). Second, Michael Greve has an account where Erie enables states to capture income from outsiders, and this is bad.
There’s several different versions of the story; first as a formal matter this Supreme Court clearly misunderstood. The rules of decision act in Erie. As a matter of statutory interpretation, the Courts reported reason does not stand up.
From Thomas Sowell and George Will to …. this is a steep decline indeed.
This happened in 2011; some of the philosophers in the room accused him of undermining the basis of human rights by undermining the nation state. And those were putative liberals.
You would not believe how furious the entire colloquium was at Joseph Carens! It was extraordinary.
I went to the famous NYU legal theory colloquium, and witnessed Samuel Freeman furiously lecturing Joseph Carens that open borders would only lead to global immoderation. He certainly thought Rawls was a nationalist in some key respects.
I wish the anti-monopoly types denounced these decisions with half the fervor they denounce Ezra Klein.
If people tend to overreact to the imposition of rent laws, that implies that rent control laws may be less effective.
It was truly horrifying to hear from people in nonprofits and government trying desperately to house migrants in blue states over the last few years, who simply could not find any place to house them, because barely any new housing existed and prices were being driven higher and higher.
It's kind of impressive how bad the political consequences of left-NIMBYism are: losing political representation to red states, losing the moral high ground on migration issues, and exacerbating homelessness. At least "developers" had to go to Texas and Florida.
What book is this?
If you read the legal history of abortion, you find many formulations of neutrality similar to Rawls spoken by liberal Protestants during the 1960s and 1950s, wielded as a weapon against Catholics.
I have a hunch that Rawls formulation of political liberalism helped itself to a vision of church and state relations that was a product of Northeastern elites that didn’t realize how controversial it was even in the US.
Sure! This is armchair theorizing.
Your argument reminds me a bit of neoconservatives back in the day: they had to invade and build a democratic Iraq, but the felt necessity didn’t imply that task was possible.
At least it’s the more probable result, I think. I don’t pretend I know.
The New Deal was only so successful because of an overwhelming popular mandate; and while the future is unknowable, so far leftists and liberals have not yet articulated how such a mandate will be achieved.
With respect to my friends @patsobkowski.com and @beaubaumann.bsky.social, a lot of the liberal discourse on such project seems to assume that the reconstructive project will not need to be considerably less ambitious after Trump II. That assumption seems questionable to me.
I think Matt Bruenig has done a similar analysis.
As a case study for the harms of AI, it’s not exactly airtight. You could write a similar case study for the harms of books!
If you read the article carefully, the doctors admit they don’t have access to the actual chat logs, so we don’t know what chatgot said to the guy. The article also doesn’t specify what prompt the doctors used to ask Chat GPT, and the guy seems like he was paranoid to begin with.
Alternatively, we should adopt a pigouvian tax on legal scholarship, given the tremendous externalities involved.
As @brianlfrye.bsky.social says, legal academics are great at solving all collective action problems except their own.
Check out WHERE MONSTERS LIE: DEAD END by Kyle Starks on @kickstarter.com www.kickstarter.com/projects/the...
It has to be a filing mistake, right?
Damn man.
Weird that means-tested welfare is now unconstitutional.
No Beethoven? I’m sure Doom would think Eroica was about him.
It’s my birthday today, or as my comic book friends will understand, my own personal Tom Spurgeon Remembrance Day.
Guilty as charged.
If you put someone on a block list called “Convicted Pedophiles” that would probably be considered a factual assertion subject to libel. The “Creepy Media Men” litigation is instructive on this point.
I was more addressing Chandra’s argument; I’m definitely in agreement with you.
None of which is to deny being put on a blocklist can be harmful and annoying.
I doubt being accused of being an “arrogant jerk and a troll” would be understood as a factual assertion capable of being proven true or false.
It would only get to libel if the blocks were understood as making a factual assertion, as opposed to just giving an opinion; given online discourse, this would be awfully difficult to prove.
There came a day when the old gods died!
If you like dark humor, Sky Daddy is very funny.
The Tinker line of cases, not just Tinker.
I would also teach this case alongside Tinker.
I wonder if teaching this case against the attempts of others trying to establish a right to try medical treatments not approved by the FDA sheds light on Roberts’ reasoning.
Let Larry Hama write Uncle Scrooge you cowards!
My hot take is SFFA v. Harvard is one of the best examples of Lahav’s case for litigation.
Thanks. I was looking at cheap sets of the Gemstone works on eBay.
@teganoneil5000.bsky.social are the gemstone reprints in album form Carl Barks complete and worth purchasing?
So, out of curiosity. How much would be a fair rate for black and white art for a small run indie comic? Say around 1000 copies sold at indie comic conventions.
I really loved that series and your work on it.
I’m having a lot of trouble keeping track of where we are on the tariff-meter.
The executive is a they, not an it, paraphrasing Easterbrook.
Does anyone know when Wong Kim Ark started to be taken for the proposition that children of undocumented or illegals immigrants were entitled to birthright citizenship? I’m trying to nail down the date but I haven’t succeeded yet.
Does anyone know when Wong Kim Ark started to be taken for the proposition that children of undocumented or illegals immigrants were entitled to birthright citizenship? I’m trying to nail down the date but I haven’t succeeded yet.
I suspect the problem emerged because the school board was composed of a fairly leftist slate that did not heed the advice of their lawyers.
Boasberg should try reading Terry Pratchett sometime.
How should liberals think about whether we should encourage reproduction in light of declining populations?
Willet has not moderated, at least if her Twitter profile is any indication.
Damn, you scooped me! :p
There’s an interesting tension between this law and unitary executive theory. Has anybody written on it?
This was noticed at the time in conservative circles; AEI and CEI, whatever you might say about them, retained their independence.
I think it dates from Jim DeMint’s tenure. DeMint reoriented Heritage to be more of a political shop rather than a think tank.
2021-2024: “Lina Khan is literally saving democracy,” they said 2025: Lina Khan is chillaxing with Steve Bannon WTAF?
Seems like an adventurous theory of standing.
I’m not trying to start an argument.
Hi Meredith, is the allegation that the harassment consisted of quote-tweeting screenshots? Or is there something I’m missing?
Wordless Wednesday:
Rude!
Where have have you read that information on Sotomayor?
This is @beaubaumann.bsky.social erasure.
He and Phil Magness are two peas in a pod.
I haven’t had time to listen to the podcast yet though. So don’t hold me to it!
Will Baude has recorded a podcast on his reaction; his written summary indicated that he is also not a fan. reason.com/volokh/2024/...
So uh how do we buy ComiXology