Alexander Winn

bsky.app/profile/alex...

Appropriately so, she was deranged.

On Twitter he was followed by someone who called themselves Sandra Day O’Connor, wanted to be called Sandy and generally acted like they were a deranged 14 year old.

You also aren’t followed on bluesky by absolute maniacs (as far as I can tell) that have Justices in their profile picture AND (this is the critical bit) insist on being called the name of that SCOTUS Justice.

For my charm, witty banter and juristocracy of balance to the force - obviously.

Been there, done some snorkelling myself. Didn't see any dangerous sharks but do vividly remember seeing a lovely large turtle.

Cope.

Now let’s see your judicial/legal philosophy.

Look the #satire closer is a leading indicator here!

Law prof blawg, is that you? Did you accidentally out yourself? Anyway, replace LPE with Roberts Court and that’s about 60% of the professor content on this site.

The case SCOTUS is hearing is about ability to bring the action in Federal court based on a subpoena, NOT the merits of any particular advertising as I am sure you are fully aware of. Here is the QP. Do explain where in the QP it goes to the actual merits of the 1A claim.

You refer to Pierce three times in your piece. None of them concern standing. It's peculiar to say the least to say something is doctrinally novel (re standing) if it's a straightforward application of a 100 year old precedent to only marginally different circumstances.

Re Pierce, can I start with a so what question. So what if that's how it's being rationalised if the way it's being rationalised is the most doctrinally cogent. That's what a good doctrinalist is meant to do, to understand how a case fits into a corpus of law.

I'm not suggesting Scalia's view fading into the background isn't a big deal. What I am suggesting is it's not good evidence for realignment when the contrary con view always existed and was articulated in the same case. At min, this shows there wasn't a one true con position as a baseline.

Idk man, citing the cite to Diamond as evidence of realignment when the theory of standing being advanced is no different to Pierce (wow a particularly on point precedent at that) which was then cited in Diamond feels like you're just nuance trolling the Court at this point.

You still haven't addressed why Scalia's position should be taken as the base position for realignment and not Thomas' despite Thomas being present in Troxel. More importantly, please address the discrepancy between left and right. I suspect pg 114 in the US reports will be pg 12 of the slip op!

There's the irony here. You've taken the epistemology underlying conservative immunities jurisprudence then repackaged it in something nice sound (democracy yay).

Clear notice is an important value, particularly in the context of the criminal law, to ensure due process and liberty. That's not what we're talking about here, although ironically enough those same concerns would lead a legislator to not enact the law at issue.

This impulse by the way does exist in conservative jurisprudence (sadly) in qualified immunity where super clear notice is needed before govt officials become liable. We will probably see it rear its ugly head again (again sadly) in Landor when the Court will probs require super notice under RILUPA.

What you demand is super clear notice. Not reasonable notice a legislator ought to be expected to react to. No, the type of notice you get when watching an add with someone doing a dangerous stunt with text saying do not try this at home. In other words, notice designed for idiots.

And all of the above ignores the potential commerce clause problems lurking in the background of Congress essentially legislating for crime control in an area that was historically quintessentially a police power issue. You have to wave all these points away for the point to make sense. All of them.

Even if you think a priori one wouldn’t engage in an Originalist analysis, considered thought to the statute as drafted would raise serious concerns over the capaciousness of scope of the prohibition, its vagueness and the burden that has on liberty without proofs of efficacy. That also is enough.

For MJS and your point to hold, it mustn’t be reasonable to expect Congress to realise the ban enacted today would be unconstitutional or at least sufficiently constitutionally risky. That’s obviously nonsense. An attentive legislator would at least factor in text, history, and tradition.

Congressman aren’t legally illiterate people who’ve been plucked off the street at random, they are as a cohort highly educated, many themselves have gone to elite law schools. There’s a base, reasonable expectation of a level of analytical heft in constitutional matters.

You people are ridiculously unserious. In order to have an even remotely healthy constitutional system, legislators have an obligation to think carefully and deeply about constitutional matters a priori. That consideration never occurred with the GCA when it obviously should have.

No, I think his point is just to take shots at the idea the ABA is neutral.

I don’t think anyone would deny FedSoc is a legal conservative organisation, and that wasn’t Will’s point.

About the post bruh. I do not understand why there needs to be conspiracies around Fedsoc. It's the high powered people in the org doing the political stuff, not the org itself, which isn't like the mob boss example.

You've got to be kidding me.

The person who wrote a defining paper about section 3 of the 14A has a goal of neutering the 14A? Yeah ok, you might just be a moron.