Shorter "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire": Just because things are true doesn't mean we say them. #2L

Shorter "McCulloch v. Maryland": To be a sovereign means you can do anything you want. When the Constitution says Congress can only do what's "necessary and proper," it means the ends must justify means. Also, we very firmly believe the myth that the people created the United States and that federal government exists to benefit the people, not states.

Which is not to imply they're wrong about the outcome of the case, necessarily, but it sounds ridiculously authoritarian. Because it is. #2L

You can't truly separate church and state because the existence of a supreme law or sovereignty whose will is executed by disciples who are qualified to read the sacred texts presupposes most features of a hegemonic religion. (And, in practice, the execution of a state mirrors all of their features.)

#2L

Earlier this week I went to a book talk by a retired federal prosecutor* and he raised the idea that the fascist element of modern American politics was scary... "But lawyers like you will be our front line defense against that."

It took everything in me not to laugh. Totalitarianism is lawyer (esp. prosecutor) job security.

It really struck home that there's nothing I can really do to Make A Change so 1Ls aren't fed this kind of propaganda uncritically. They were nodding along. I was mostly just sad afterwards.

* If I had known, I wouldn't have gone at all, but I wasn't quite mad enough to leave early.

#2L

The judicial power of the United States is a tulpa. #2L

My constitutional law textbook namedrops Alexander Bickel and Robert Bork on fucking page 11. The interpretation of the Constitution is essentially presented as Originalism and its Outside ("nonoriginalists").

God damned legal liberals marching themselves to our collective doom.

#2L

The most annoying thing about the Bluebook citation system, beyond its existence, is that it invites assholes to nitpick about the way that you combined two different rules, but it does not provide sufficient examples of the rules combined as such.

Not even the Indigo Book can solve this problem because it's a fundamental flaw. At least MLA has fallbacks that are generally acceptable, IIRC. Bluebook is interpreted by literal wannabe lawyers running the academic journals for free as law students.

#2L

I'm taking a criminal procedure class in the fall. One of the first pages of the book has an unhinged bullet point about how "there are no free lunches" and students might be tempted to ask for more money allocated to police and prosecution (and public defenders). The tragic trade-off of choosing between paying for the criminal punishment system and other things.

"There is too much crime to handle."

Wow. When you get to define crime and it's more than you can handle, it's almost like your system doesn't exist to handle crime, huh. #2L

I'm going to try knocking out some short books I've picked up while I have some free time. This collection of essays about "reshaping the lawyer's identity" is hilarious.

One of the key ideas is that lawyering should be a job about "healing" the community. They approach that from various spiritual angles, which is interesting for what is, but then they attribute this idea to Warren Burger, lmao.

Mkay, lemme just sip this drink and go look up what the Nixon-appointed Chief Justice did while he had a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. #2L

"Teaching is a venerable career with 200 years of institutional, cultural expertise developed under the modern paradigm."

"How do you deal with kids who won't calm down?"

"We lock those motherfuckers in wooden crates." #2L

SCOTUS, announcement: "We are holding that the person who threatens someone else must SUBJECTIVELY know they are threatening them."

Kagan, the opinion: "[Everyone agrees] a statement can count as [a true threat] based solely on its OBJECTIVE content."

I fucking hate these people. #2L

SCOTUS, announcement: "We are holding that the person who threatens someone else must SUBJECTIVELY know they are threatening them."

Kagan, the opinion: "[Everyone agrees] a statement can count as [a true threat] based solely on its objective content."

I fucking hate these people. #2L

It is truly terrifying how many school policies live in Google Docs and Drive. #2L

I've been reading elementary school handbooks. I laugh every time I see the "no trading cards" rule. #2L

Website case Bad.

You know, it's not clear to me how US courts distinguish between the cases where they're like "this state law is unconstitutional" and the others where "this state law clarifies the federal law." Because states are allowed to enact laws clarifying their interpretation of federal policies. I know there isn't a federal law in this case, but the perception that states are primarily reliant on the federal Constitution is wrong and the perception that federal entities can just tell the states what to do is wrong, too. Or it's supposed to be.

This case was, according to the court, a state exceeding its constitutional authority to promote the welfare of protected classes. But, phrased that way, the federalism and state's rights angles should be obvious.

But who cares? It's all fake. #2L

It's also just appalling that the term "affirmative action" has become a buzzword for this specific proxy issue, in exactly the same way as white people in the 1970s threw a shit fit over "busing."

Affirmative action is a shorthand for "take affirmative action [that is, TAKE MEASURES] to account for and address the harms committed by white supremacy."

So when you take away affirmative action, you are literally promoting the historical caste system of this country in which whites are the ruling class. It's right there in the text. Not only are they saying the government shouldn't be doing anything against white supremacist, they're saying that the government IS NOT ALLOWED to do it. #2L

The abolition of affirmative action will undoubtedly reduce the populations of students of color across the country, but one thing that will not change is that this entire corpus of case law requires every party to these decisions to lie about their motivations.

The parties that don't want affirmative action are lying because their goals are (a) at best, merely to give their child another bite at the apple at their preferred school, (b) more likely that they don't want Black people in particular to have the same access to credentialing institutions. But they can't say either of those things because there is no right to go to whatever school you arbitrarily choose and they know they can't get the sign-off from authority if their racism is mask-off.

The parties that do want affirmative action are lying because their goal IS to increase people of color's access to credentialing institutions, because it's the right thing to do in the face of centuries of systemic exclusion. But they can't say that because that principle has long since been ruled unconstitutional.

The conservative Justices are lying because they align politically with the people who want affirmative action to be abolished.

I have not read any of the dissent yet, but I feel comfortable predicting that they're lying because, unless they go with a scorched Earth opinion that they hate writing, they're probably going to try to rely on precedent and interpretation. I hope they do just call the conservatives out, at least. #2L

Regarding the decision abolishing affirmative action, the bald-faced nonsense is not a surprise to me because Roberts (a) is an obvious white supremacist, and (b) wrote "Parents v. Seattle School District No. 1".

But even so.

"There is no caste [in America]. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."

Read a book once, Motherfucker. #2L

Imagine being so based as to have free bus service but so cringe as to make bus stops a) without seats, b) which do not face out to the road, so bus drivers can't see you.

Literally there is a little sticker telling you to hold out a flashlight so you know that it's your fault.

My feet are killing me and also I am in the rain.

Olympia, WA. #2L

Navarette v. California is a Bad Actually decision, but it has the distinction of being the only "the cops smelled marijuana" claim I have ever believed.

30 pounds, dawg?? #2L