Raff Donelson

1.5K posts

Raff Donelson banner
Raff Donelson

Raff Donelson

@RaffDonelson

professor & associate dean at @ChicagoKentLaw | editor of @JLegPhi | legal theorist | philosopher | committed to social democracy

Chicago Katılım Haziran 2020
525 Takip Edilen970 Takipçiler
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
Call for abstracts: The deadline for the Legal Philosophy Workshop is fast-approaching. By March 1st, submit your abstract or volunteer to comment. What could be better than discussing legal philosophy in Amsterdam this summer? philevents.org/event/show/131… #CFP #CFA #jurisprudence
English
1
12
24
2.9K
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
@PayPal I'm reporting them to @CFPB (the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). Paypal needs to have better policies in place to ensure that nonsense like this doesn't happen.
English
0
0
1
145
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
To add to the list of crazy things this week, @Paypal claimed that I closed my account via a conversation with their AI chatbot. I said I didn't and asked them for proof. They refused to provide any.
English
2
0
6
414
Starkist
Starkist@ARegularJabroni·
@AP Did not expect to see concentration camps in 2025
English
19
6
150
7.9K
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
@xphilosopher @Insper @almeida2808 Thanks for this question! I'm working on two projects. One is testing Liam Murphy's claim that natural lawyers will acquiesce to evil regimes. The second is about whether mafias are legal systems, and for that one, I rely on observational rather than experimental social science.
English
1
0
4
210
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
I've always been a big fan of this article.
English
0
0
5
269
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
@KCMONO1 @steve_vladeck And then in Trump v. US, they claim that the ordinary protections of criminal procedure are insufficient to protect him from malicious prosecution. Hmmm, I wonder who's responsible for that?
English
0
0
0
20
HelpinPoorFolks
HelpinPoorFolks@KCMONO1·
@steve_vladeck It’s almost as if we have a Supreme Court full of right wing judges who don’t actually care about people accused of crimes unless they’re the former President
English
2
0
14
679
Steve Vladeck
Steve Vladeck@steve_vladeck·
#SCOTUS is set to hear *0* appeals from state criminal convictions this term. That total may be a fluke, but the gradual disappearance of such cases from the docket isn’t. And as today’s “One First” explains, it has lots of (bad) downstream implications: stevevladeck.com/p/113-direct-a…
English
4
54
143
35K
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
@peez Many are saying "under." They're imagining that their true ability will be seen and they'll get the prestige and power they're due. But many underestimated folks are overlooked and never get their flowers. It's better to have people believe in you, even more than you deserve.
English
0
0
3
42
David Pizarro
David Pizarro@peez·
Would you rather be overestimated or underestimated?
English
12
2
5
1.9K
Richard M. Re
Richard M. Re@RichardMRe·
End of post: “Biden is the first beneficiary of Trump v. U.S.”
Jack Goldsmith@jacklgoldsmith

Biden’s pardon of his son going back to 2014 covers Hunters’ Burisma activities. Whether or not there was criminality, there might have been an investigation by the incoming Trump administration. That is off the table now (as is Hunter’s 5th Amendment claim before congressional investigators). Also off the table is any Trump administration investigation of Biden for issuing the pardon to obstruct justice, on a theory of obstruction akin to the ones Mueller was floating (though not in the pardon context) in Volume II of his report. Bob Bauer and I explained in “After Trump,” p. 127 ff., why a president could theoretically be prosecuted for using a pardon to obstruct justice. We also explained (p. 126) why such a prosecution would not necessarily be precluded by the Article II pardon power, which makes the pardon absolute for the beneficiary of the pardon, but “does not afford the president , as the grantor, immunity from commission of a crimes in connection with the granting of the pardon.” However, Biden is protected by the Supreme Court’s July immunity decision from criminal investigation for possible obstruction of justice by the incoming Trump administration. The Court said that a pardon was a conclusive and preclusive presidential power, and that the president's exercise of such a power is broadly immune from criminalization, investigation, or prosecution by a subsequent administration. The Court in reaching this conclusion expressed worry about “an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors.” I.e. Biden is the first beneficiary of Trump v. U.S.

English
1
0
10
1.4K
Afif Aqrabawi
Afif Aqrabawi@AjAqrabawi·
Yesterday during a lab meeting, my mentor informed me that I may no longer progress in my career due to my so-called 'infamy.' I was told that I was to blame for the challenges I've been facing in publishing my work—that my 'negative' political activism might be provoking the particularly unusual hostility of peer reviewers. Apparently, several 'respectable' figures in the scientific community have contacted him to voice their disapproval and even urged him to terminate my employment. This also highlights how the cowardly silence of my 'allies' perpetuates bigotry and exclusion. To my 'colleagues' who feel entitled to pass judgment on my existence as a Palestinian scientist—one who cannot turn away from the human instinct to preserve life while witnessing the daily murder of my people—I regret to inform you that I will continue to exist, unapologetically, with no regard for your comfort or supremacist ideals. Fortunately, science is not confined to institutions. It lives in my mind and heart, and I can enjoy it fully—even from the solitude of my imagination; even if I were to become homeless. Home, however, is precisely what I am fighting for. I only wish I had the privilege to contemplate nature, without the existential threat of Zionism. From my perspective at the margins here at MIT, I have come to see academia for what it truly is: a stronghold of racism, classism, and spiritual rot masquerading as enlightenment. Apologies in advance if I don’t respond to comments on this post—this is a deeply personal reflection, shared primarily for myself.
Afif Aqrabawi@AjAqrabawi

English
1.6K
8.7K
30K
1.7M
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
@OrinKerr How to ask this politely - I take it that you were alive during Watergate, right?
English
1
0
2
310
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
@orangeandblackk @GovernorShapiro If I die or sustain a life-altering injury from some preventable injury because an ignoramus was my service provider, I'm not free to do much anymore. We maximize societal freedom by preventing such nonsense.
English
1
0
0
20
Andy Geleff
Andy Geleff@orangeandblackk·
@RaffDonelson @GovernorShapiro A free market is the best regulator. A free society maximizes choice, not fear. Licensing does nothing but impose unnecessary barriers on entrepreneurs or low income individuals.
English
1
0
0
11
Governor Josh Shapiro
Governor Josh Shapiro@GovernorShapiro·
When I took office, it took 2 weeks for the state to process applications for new cosmetology salon and barbershop permits. That’s 2 weeks of lost opportunity and profit for folks ready to start a small business. Today, those permits are processed in less than one day.
English
416
59
530
44.7K
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
@orangeandblackk @GovernorShapiro Salons don't just cut hair. They also do chemical treatments that can hurt people if done wrongly. This is why expertise and licensing matter. A free society is one where consumers don't have to live in fear, fear that service providers may have no clue what they're doing.
English
1
0
0
19
Andy Geleff
Andy Geleff@orangeandblackk·
@GovernorShapiro A free society wouldn't need the government's permission to open a business that cuts hair.
English
1
2
11
186
Raff Donelson
Raff Donelson@RaffDonelson·
@AldConway This is alarming. What so many people - including the mayor apparently - don't realize is that having untrustworthy police makes solving crime more difficult. Victims and witnesses may fear contacting cops. And many smart and well-intentioned people won't join police forces.
English
2
0
1
263
Alderman Bill Conway
Alderman Bill Conway@AldConway·
During today’s budget hearing, I asked Inspector General Witzburg if the Mayor’s Office declined her recommendation to form a task force to root out Chicago Police officers with ties to extremist groups. Her response was clear - and alarming: "Yes."
Chicago Office of Inspector General@ChicagoOIG

OIG has published an advisory to @ChicagosMayor regarding @Chicago_Police member affiliation with anti-government and extremist groups. Read more: igchicago.org/2024/07/09/cpd…

English
26
18
79
42.6K