Law profs saying they do “knowledge production” is just so on brand
English
Binding Dicta
107 posts
@MrAnthony81 that's odd. you are basing your conclusion on the end result.
English
22-year old Eric Davis in his first 131 PA
23 for 114 w/ 50 K (.202)
LanceMcAlister@LanceMcAlister
Playing around with numbers this morning, just out of curiosity.... Rece Hinds was 21 of 122 (.172) in his first 131 trips to the plate in MLB. Johnny Bench was 20 for 121 (.165) in his first 131 trips to the plate in MLB. #Reds #StillWeird
English
@SeanTrende You should be proud of your son and yourself. As a dad of “typical” boys playing little league this spoke to me and reminded me, too, how much it means to classmates (and parents) to be included. I forget that sometimes, and I think this piece will literally change my life.
English
I almost hesitate to promote this, because it wasn't really intended to be a piece. I just sort of sat down and it came out. Maybe someone else out there has the same type of day today, and it'll speak to them.
realclearpolitics.com/articles/2026/…
English
@dilanesper Nah. I just don’t pretend to be able to know from an interim order “what justices would actually want to do here.”
English
@BindingDicta Sigh. You are saying what is formally possible but you are ignoring what justices would actually want to do here.
English
I'll do a future thread on the Comstock Act. But it's perfectly possible to be a textualist and reject Thomas' views. Indeed, the other 8 justices are textualists and apparently reject them.
Clarence Maximus@ClarenceMaximus
I think it’s basically impossible to both be a textualist and disagree with Thomas on the applicability of the Comstock act, so I have to assume the other justices had some reason to ignore it. Do they think that a DOJ stance against enforcement means that there’s suddenly a judicially cognizable interest in engaging in criminal conduct? Seems crazy given past decisions that have found no cognizable interest for much flimsier reasons.
English
@dilanesper It’s a preliminary order on the shadow docket. It is perfectly reasonable (and often happens) for justices to say—no not right now in this posture even if they ultimately agree with the view. I mean that’s true even when they decline cert.
English
@BindingDicta Quite the contrary, if you think Thomas is right, you WANT to say it because you want litigants to bring Comstock-based challenges until someone has proper standing and can win the case.
The reason Thomas is alone IS, as usual, that he's taking a crazy position only for himself.
English
I am always amazed at the idea that historians have some special skill to understand legal doctrines and development simply because they happened in the past.
Kevin Baum@kevinbaum013
Lawyers are not trained historians. Originalism is largely and remains largely bullshit. The hubris that backs it leads to nonsense arguments that ignore the plain, unambiguous language of a statue. These professors want to will more bullshit in furtherance of their careers.
English
@adam_shniderman @VecchTweets Making $240k is … pretty good. Understand people want to make more money, but it’s not like a judge salary is so low that you can’t survive (it should be higher)
English
I think the young lady nominated in Montana is a fine choice. But I agree with this. Look around at the wreckage of those who were conservative or liberal 30 years ago. Now how many can be counted on to judge as they did then?
English
@BindingDicta There's no actual evidence that Sotomayor or Jackson has an insufficient intellect. So if someone says it anyway, yeah, it says nothing about SS/KBJ and a lot about the person saying it.
English
Since I am already getting crap:
1. If you don't read their work, don't comment about their intellect.
2. If you do and still say they aren't smart, you're either racist or dishonest.
3. If you change the subject to hackishness, well, Alito qualifies more than Jackson.
Dilan Esper@dilanesper
i know liberals will say "it's just racism", but i honestly don't understand the continued smear campaigns of many prominent rightie legal commentators against Sotomayor and Jackson. They're both on the Court, they're both competent, and there's literally nothing to gain here.
English
@mike_frags @martensmatt1 do you think it was improper for senate Rs to say CA6 Judge Mathis was unqualified because he hadn’t argued in a federal appellate court?
English
Senator Kennedy asked Allison Rushing why literally every Williams & Connolly partner who signed her letter of support wasn’t more qualified for the Fourth Circuit than she was. I thought it was an unfair question then just like Schiff’s questions about Katie’s colleagues.
English
Justin Walker never first-chaired a trial before going on WD Ky. He’s now one of the most influential judges in the country. On the other hand Democrats confirmed a sitting mag judge who thought Brady warnings involved the 2d Amendment. Experience isn’t everything.
Matt Martens@martensmatt1
This is an embarrassment. Nobody should ever be a federal district judge if no client has ever trusted that person to first-chair a trial. Nobody.
English
Odd choice to file a lawsuit naming former Secretary Noem as a plaintiff after Secretary Mullin was confirmed. Easy enough fix, but certainly odd
Attorney General Keith Ellison@AGEllison
BREAKING: I'm suing the federal government for access to evidence in the shootings of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Julio Sosa-Celis. It's astonishing this lawsuit is even necessary, but in Minnesota, nobody is above the law.
English
this is wrong. People ought to be able to bet on a game.
the Prohibitionist mentality is tempting, but it doesn't work. but we have the technology and wherewithal to allow casual betting while stopping the downsides of gambling.
Josh Barro@jbarro
We should make sports betting illegal again. Put it back in the black market where it did a lot less damage to society.
English
@nbouse13 @NextNetworkJosh @coachwwilliams So why do we put any at large team as a 9, or 10 seed? Why not put all conference champs ahead of at large seeds? Otherwise what is the point in seeding
English
@NextNetworkJosh @coachwwilliams What an awful opinion. The 16 seeds won their conference tournament. It should be the last 8 at-large teams selected to play for the 11 or 12 seed lines. You win your conference, you shouldn't have to play-in.
English
I will never understand why there are 11 seeds in the First Four
English
@ckieser13 Idk about 14 games but … yes? If you’re playing at Allen Fieldhouse, Ames, Arizona, Houston etc as compared to against Fairfield and Quinnipiac. Really not a difficult choice
English
@BindingDicta You should get better treatment for losing 14 games and losing in the first round of your conference tournament?
English
I will never understand why a team that wins its conference auto bid would ever have to play in the "First Four."
English
@ckieser13 I don’t understand why the “should” follows here. If you’re the worst team in the tournament I don’t get why you get special treatment because you knocked off Alcon state, Alabama A&M, and southern. Or holy Cross and Colgate. But again: OK!
English
@BindingDicta Should entitle you to a spot in the real tournament as was intended.
English
@ckieser13 I guess I don’t follow why winning three straight MEAC games would entitle you to as much but ok
English
@BindingDicta My point is that if you need the last at large bids to get in, you should play in the fake tournament. Teams that won their conference tournaments should not.
English
@BindingDicta Auburn lost 15 games lol nobody is crying for them
English
@ckieser13 I’m sure Auburn and Oklahoma would love to be there
English
@BindingDicta Don't act like the first four is part of the tournament lol. It's not even on the bracket.
English