Julian Davis Mortenson
@jdmortenson.bsky.social
Early American legal and political history. Presidential power. Probably kidding.
this is obviously correct and must be part of any effort to reconstruct American democracy
The UnPopulist@theunpopulist.net · 2d agoAdam Serwer argues that people who break the law for an administration must face accountability—and that failing to act invites another attempt.
Adam Serwer argues that people who break the law for an administration must face accountability—and that failing to act invites another attempt.
Y’all, the preorder links for The Political Supreme Court are here! Direct from UNC Press: uncpress.org/978146969713... Bookshop: bookshop.org/p/books/the-... Amazon: a.co/d/08lXOMa7 Barnes & Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-politi...
The Political Supreme Court
Today’s Supreme Court justices bristle at the label “politicians in robes,” insisting that they operate above the fray of partisan politics. But for th...
uncpress.org
I tell my class from the start that I am teaching them the history of doctrine through time, and it is what it is.
Lot of sympathy for this, but it can be educational (incl for the prof) to let them draw their own conclusions about your preferences. In any case, it's super educational when they come to appreciate that many people aren't straight-ticket ideologically/methodologically. Teach the mess, be the mess.
Not just that, they were so analytically intense about doctrine. As compared with say the more conservative L&E that couldn't have given a figlet about doctrine.
Now I’m feeling somewhat serious Like yall track what serious *lawyers* the good crits were??? That ish was earned not asserted
all other approaches to crit theory round to “correlation = causation”
Julian Davis Mortenson@jdmortenson.bsky.social · 6d agoit’s literally not possible to convey a critical view of the law in any meaningful way without spending the time to build up and faithfully inhabit the views that you’re arguing are epiphenomenal
it’s literally not possible to convey a critical view of the law in any meaningful way without spending the time to build up and faithfully inhabit the views that you’re arguing are epiphenomenal
Julian Davis Mortenson@jdmortenson.bsky.social · 6d agofwiw I think serious teaching involves owning up to your preferences here and there (and situating them as “im a boring dem” “im a boring republican”) and/but mostly doing the job by inhabiting and conveying how the majorities and dissents are engaging with the job of judging
Just write about the great blue heron and then the little cattle egret and then the g-damned rose breasted grosbeak and you will be done I simply do not think this is so hard.
man, writing is for the birds literally why does anyone do it
The other thing is virtually everything in the interview is stuff the judge actually said in court too, directly to DOJ attorneys before him.
I don't mean to pretend I don't have views! I didn't love the judges giving these interviews. And I think we shouldn't gerrymander ordinary ethics to make it okay bc of what they said. (Though, if a violation, I'm open to arg that it was morally justified so long as they accept the consequences)
Julian Davis Mortenson@jdmortenson.bsky.social · 2w agoI know a bit about ethics Qs w/r/t arbitrator appointments, but I can't emphasize how nonexpert I am re the federal judicial equivalent!! These fields tend to be incredibly technical and often domain-specific in ways that can confound normal intuitions. So I'm truly curious for thoughts.
I'm v v curious to hear what legal ethics folks think about this DOJ judicial ethics complaint. As a total nonexpert, it seems nonfrivolous? Whether that's right on the merits--and what the consequence should be if violation(s) are found--feel like pretty important questions.
Gabriel Malor@gabrielmalor.bsky.social · 2w agoDOJ's complaint about at least seven fed. judges in Minnesota for talking to the NYTimes about the Trump administration's mismanagement of immigration enforcement complains of these ten truthful statements on the ground that some immigration cases are pending appeal. www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...
The major bombshell in here though is that DOJ says Judges Schiltz and Tunheim should be "ordered to recuse from any matters involving DHS" and that they should be investigated because they "covet publicity."
DOJ's complaint about at least seven fed. judges in Minnesota for talking to the NYTimes about the Trump administration's mismanagement of immigration enforcement complains of these ten truthful statements on the ground that some immigration cases are pending appeal. www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...
