No, to be clear, it's Prosser poking fun at those questions with an imaginary set of questions back.

I can't believe there's a case on this in 2025, but there it is.

Op here, State v. Hickman.
appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=...

Why do you think originalism defeats the concept of a constitution?

hat seems odd to me. Why isn't this just a case of so-called "transferred intent"? They were intending to restrain a person, even if, tragically, the wrong person was hit.

Wouldn't effect the result, as there were other issues, but still noteworthy. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...

Is it a government vampire?

But we're talking about a phrase that appears at the end of a long dissent. You can point that, if this weren't the case and we lived in a different world, you could draw likely conclusions about the phrase. But it's the case in the world we're in, which is why we're discussing it that way.

I disagree. When a writer says, "Respectfully, your ideas are stupid," I don't think we treat the words "Respectfully" as adding actual politeness. We know the author is not speaking respectfully, so the "respectfully" addition comes off as insincere.

Was 2004 the pre-zinger world? Everyone was on blogs, with insta-commentary on every word choice in opinions and plenty of harsh criticism.

I think the press writes a lot about this, which makes it a thing in the press; I don't know whether it's become a thing among the Justices. (But if it is, it's rather silly.)

But "I dissent" is not impolite, and "I respectfully dissent" is not polite when it's at the end of a very disrespectful dissent. The characterization at the end doesn't change whether the opinion is respectful.

Investors do a lot to make cool businesses possible, so warming their hearts doesn't seem necessarily like a bad thing. But how to make the switch from an economy of things to an economy of software is pretty interesting.

For those who didn't read it, I take the lesson to be that, more and more, everything is software and software is usually funded by subscriptions and (to a lesser extent) monetizing data collection. Welcome to the future.

A niche application, but it's also great for making notes on teaching a law school class. You put the key ideas and questions to ask students on the left, and you put down explanations and correct answers on the right. Or at least I have found that useful.

Why might this be useful? My view: It lets you separate the top line material from the details. So you can write the big conclusion or key idea on the left, and the explanation for it on the right. They're nicely separated on the page.

Tweeting at X and Bluesky are so similar you even get the same joke responses.

This is correct, in my view, as I argued last month here.
reason.com/volokh/2025/...