That’s not quite fair; Ava Cordero admitted to being a heavy drug user and being hospitalized multiple times for psychiatric problems. law.justia.com/cases/new-yo...

I don’t understand how the idea that the rule that determines validity can’t itself be law follows from the tautological premises.

Corey.

Drip is on point, no notes.

I guess I didn’t miss much by not getting into HLS.

I’m not saying it’s suspicious, necessarily. Just extremely weird.

I’m very confused as to how he was even hired by his school.

They’re not even healthy for you.

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.