It is not the job of a law scholar to upend clearly settled law with meager source material and convoluted textual readings, and doing so does not create a live debate.
December 8, 2025 at 7:40 PM
It is not the job of a law scholar to upend clearly settled law with meager source material and convoluted textual readings, and doing so does not create a live debate.
At the zoo today. Several hundred spectators at the panda enclosure, and when Qing Bao started eating they all burst into cheers. More convinced than ever this would end the trade war within hours.
April 17, 2025 at 6:23 PM
At the zoo today. Several hundred spectators at the panda enclosure, and when Qing Bao started eating they all burst into cheers. More convinced than ever this would end the trade war within hours.
As always, a question like this pales beneath the enormity of the administration's flouting of all legal norms, but: Does Karoline Leavitt not know what an aircraft carrier is?
March 17, 2025 at 12:48 AM
As always, a question like this pales beneath the enormity of the administration's flouting of all legal norms, but: Does Karoline Leavitt not know what an aircraft carrier is?
You didn't ask for it, you get it anyway: introducing the SCOTUS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MARCH MADNESS BRACKET! A tournament to decide the most important constitutional decision in the Supreme Court's history.
Mostly it's a fun way to argue about the relative merits of different historic cases.
March 13, 2025 at 2:35 AM
You didn't ask for it, you get it anyway: introducing the SCOTUS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MARCH MADNESS BRACKET! A tournament to decide the most important constitutional decision in the Supreme Court's history.
Mostly it's a fun way to argue about the relative merits of different historic cases.
I closely followed the debates around Section 3 and I don’t recall a single comment to the effect that disagreeing with them was scholarly malpractice. And it wouldn’t be, because in that instance the debate played out in law reviews with fully developed arguments.
March 10, 2025 at 2:48 PM
I closely followed the debates around Section 3 and I don’t recall a single comment to the effect that disagreeing with them was scholarly malpractice. And it wouldn’t be, because in that instance the debate played out in law reviews with fully developed arguments.
Whenever Yglesias pops up I like to remember that Google identifies him as an "American blogger" and think that this is as devastating an insult as a search engine could offer him
February 20, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Whenever Yglesias pops up I like to remember that Google identifies him as an "American blogger" and think that this is as devastating an insult as a search engine could offer him