Richard M. Re @RichardMRe Twitter profile

Pinned Tweet

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 months

New paper: “Legal Realignment.” Comments very welcome. (Forthcoming ⁦⁦ @UChiLRev ⁩ )

3

30

89

Last Seen Profiles

@stw_pdg

@bokeplokalmalam

@Maiconsc95

@BumgarnerSawyer

@nathumi885

@A7_69oi

@ageomao

@ERC_TOKYO

@Mostynthefae

@SOUNDPARK045

@BinorRaja

@AltZy50377

@xia01510

@Fuji_EVJ

@PeterFBartram

@influencer_tu99

@Riccanluv23

@PeaceWingH

@YMoromugi50748

@EurekAlert

@jandakembangstw

@KAB_kairakudo

@nakagawagakusei

@yuritanuki_

@rev_vrc

@membosite

@skillsinpixels

@Demotus

@Jdre473828

@rthfi33312

@John2Win

@ChildsComment

@BDS_a_

@pop_vrc

@islandboyz26

@ghv_19

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Justice Jackson making a serious play to dethrone Alito and Kagan as SCOTUS’s best questioner.

30

79

1K

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

3 years

I am familiar with the work of one reported SCOTUS short-lister, and I can confidently tweet that she is nobody's "lesser" candidate.

5

20

383

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Justice Kagan recently wrote that the "current Court is textualist only when being so suits it.” I have a new draft paper on this: “Permissive Interpretation.” Comments welcome!

6

35

239

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

I’d just like to thank the talented, hard-working editors at @IowaLawReview again for publishing and doing such great work on my recent essay. Student editors generally deserve more credit from profs for what is too often a thankless job (or worse).

8

10

229

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 months

@AshaRangappa_ @earlymodjustice Isn’t this passage consistent with a pro immunity view? The passage explicitly envisions prosecution after impeachment and removal, doesn’t it?

38

17

220

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

4 years

I'm very excited to be joining @UVALaw this fall! But I'm also going to miss my friends, mentors, colleagues, and students @UCLA_Law , where I have spent six terrific years and started my academic career. Thank you all.

UVA Law School

@UVALaw

4 years

. @RichardMRe , an expert in federal courts and procedure whose work had #SCOTUS talking in 2018, will join the #UVALaw faculty.

1

30

33

8

213

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

For folks arguing there’s a glaring standing problem in 303 Creative: How do you explain why Justice Sotomayor didn’t pick up on this in her dissent?

32

14

138

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

3 years

New draft: "Personal Precedent at the Supreme Court." Comments welcome and appreciated! @HarvLRev

13

30

125

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

5 months

“Relying exclusively on history and tradition may seem like a way of avoiding judge-made tests. But a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test.” Good line from Justice Barrett today (Vidal v Elster)

6

24

120

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Hypothesis: Justice Jackson can more easily deploy liberal originalism because, unlike her left colleagues, she hasn’t spent the last several years exalting precedent to protect Roe.

6

5

118

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 months

A devastating loss. Fred pursued the truth with a smile, while helping others along the way. Thank you, Fred.

Lawrence Solum

@lsolum

2 months

Fred Schauer Has Passed, : It is with a heavy heart that I report that Fred Schauer passed yesterday, Sunday, the first of September, 2024. I have known Fred for almost forty years. At the very beginning of my academic career, Fred provided comments on my

20

137

344

3

15

121

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Hypothesis: proposing student loan forgiveness so that it would be struck down in court was the point.

18

20

102

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

What is the best descriptive effort to explain the conservative turn against Chevron in non-cynical terms? (The obvious cynical explanation is that, after the 1980s, Rs increasingly controlled the courts rather than agencies.)

48

10

90

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Two kinds of judicial fearlessness: (1) doing what’s right even when it’s contrary to “elite” opinion; (2) doing what’s right even when it will disappoint or frustrate your allies, or the people who put you on the bench. Folks seem to focus opportunistically on one or the other.

9

11

86

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

4 months

Can we all finally agree? Chevron has no steps.

10

7

85

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

3 years

I'd like to thank the student editors of @TexasLRev . Despite a pandemic year and a weather crisis in TX, the editors did a fabulous job improving my paper and bringing it to publication. 👏

2

1

72

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Me in the academy: How it started, how it’s going …

3

2

73

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

3 years

This piece by @adamliptak thoughtfully discusses my new paper, with great critical thoughts by Prof Allison Orr Larsen: "Problem of ‘Personal Precedents’ of Supreme Court Justices"

The Problem of ‘Personal Precedents’ of Supreme Court Justices (Published 2022)

Their efforts to seem consistent can clash with respect for precedent in the usual sense. But a new article argues that personal precedents have a role to play as legal building blocks.

www.nytimes.com

5

16

67

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

While reading ‘textualist’ defenses of the MQD, I’m starting to worry that new lawyers won’t know what textualism is. Or was. For example, doing what feels to you like ‘common sense’ isn’t textualism. And, to be legitimate non-textualism, the ‘sense’ must actually be ‘common.’

8

9

65

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

4 months

@lsolum Justice Kagan just quoted Vermeule extensively and called him one of “the finest administrative law scholars of” our time. (See the Loper Bright dissent.)

4

62

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

My sense is that there are a lot more “no, let me finish what I’m saying” moments at SCOTUS oral arguments recently—both by justices and by advocates. Anyone else have this impression? Feels like a norm shift.

3

5

60

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

11 months

I’ve heard this sort of view before, sometimes the other way around—ie, ‘Scalia is highly persuasive to students and new lawyers, but almost only to them.’ Would be interesting to test empirically.

Greg Shill

@greg_shill

11 months

RIP Sandra Day O'Connor. As Mark Twain might have said, when I was a law student, her opinions were so unpredictable I could hardly stand to read them, but when I got to be a grown-up lawyer, I was astonished at how intelligible they became.

4

0

27

7

3

60

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Here’s my new piece on the escalating pattern of manipulative judicial retirements.

Judges Are Now Using Their Retirements as Leverage Against the President

Judges have begun to leverage their retirements to make inappropriate demands of the executive branch.

slate.com

6

28

58

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

This sharp rhetoric between left justices is helpful. It shows that harsh rhetoric is just a fact of life now at SCOTUS. Its presence in a case doesn’t prove that anyone is evil and/or incompetent.

7

6

57

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

3 years

Did the Supreme Court Overrule Equity?

One aspect of yesterday’s OSHA vaccination decision really surprised me: its disregard of equitable discretion, to the point of denying that it exists. If taken at face value, this aspect of the Co…

richardresjudicata.wordpress.com

9

13

59

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

If this Court is “fearless,“ is it any more so than the ones that decided Brown, Casey, or Obergefell? Or is it a different type of fearlessness?

William Baude

@WilliamBaude

2 years

I’m quoted:

21

9

47

15

8

57

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

10 months

Draft paper: “A Law Unto Oneself: Personal Positivism and Our Fragmented Judiciary.” Comments most welcome!

1

16

51

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

11 months

Many thanks to the @PennLRev editors for this kind tweet and their great help with this project.

University of Pennsylvania Law Review

@PennLRev

11 months

The University of Pennsylvania Law Review is excited to publish Professor Richard Re’s timely article, Permissive Interpretation:

27

4

20

5

4

49

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

McConnell: “in my opinion, we should seek the narrowest, most precise, least susceptible to abuse, definition that is consistent with history and precedent.” What type of originalism is this? Is it one at all? (This isn’t a criticism. A sincere question.)

Volokh Conspiracy

@VolokhC

1 year

[Eugene Volokh] Prof. Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, "Insurrection," and Trump

7

15

38

14

1

49

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

3 years

Counterpoint: maybe great judges were great because they identified ambiguities, assumptions, and opposing principles in the law.

2

50

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Will we soon see an anti-institutionalist Supreme Court justice? That is, a justice who doesn’t just disagree about how to keep the institution legitimate or worry it might become illegitimate, but who claims that the institution is already, and perhaps irreparably, illegitimate?

13

4

49

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Justice Jackson’s dissent today is captioned in part for Case No. 20-1199, but includes a footnote saying that she didn’t participate in Case No. 20-1199. That’s recusal at SCOTUS.

1

9

49

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

“Does the Discourse on 303 Creative Portend a Standing Realignment?” Comments very welcome.

4

15

43

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

8 months

The “One Big Question” Shaping Legal Culture

Last week, I had the honor of giving the keynote address at the National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars, which was hosted by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law and …

richardresjudicata.wordpress.com

0

16

45

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 months

@AshaRangappa_ @earlymodjustice Ok, but that doesn’t help your point. And your original allegation of contradiction or change of mind, based on the passage you quoted from and reproduced, is unfounded. At any rate, I’m glad that you’re giving Kavanaugh’s paper a wider readership! It’s a good essay.

24

2

46

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 months

Decency, courage, humor. It’s striking how many people associate these ideas with Fred (and, here, also with Sherry Colb, another great scholar). To be truly great, a person must also be good.

Dorf on Law

@dorfonlaw

2 months

Here's a personal remembrance of my friend and co-editor Frederick Schauer, who passed away on Sunday.

3

15

63

0

4

45

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

This amicus brief changed the way I thought about justiciability in the student loan forgiveness cases. It’s a must-read.

William Baude

@WilliamBaude

2 years

Just filed (with Sam Bray) in Biden v. Nebraska:

7

15

117

5

9

45

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

11 months

The justices’ statements regarding Justice O’Connor are moving and apt, but they also do work: they shore up collegial, non-partisan norms in an institution that needs them. (My favorites are by Justices Barrett and Breyer—quite different, both great.)

7

9

43

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 months

Possible student note topic: the evolution (or degeneration) of the QP.

Dan Epps

@danepps

2 months

Man, I remember when the Questions Presented section was actually just the Questions Presented and not a mini-Summary of Argument. I absolutely detest this.

9

14

138

4

3

40

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

The final version of “Personal Precedent at the Supreme Court” is posted. Many thanks to the @HarvLRev editors for their great work!

0

3

36

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

3 years

Is Justice Kagan Done With Stare Decisis?

The Court recently heard argument in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, a statutory-interpretation case about Indian tribes’ ability to regulate or conduct games like bingo. But perhaps the most talke…

richardresjudicata.wordpress.com

2

13

36

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 years

I recently posted a draft paper, "Clarity Doctrines," which is forthcoming in @UChiLRev . I'd be grateful for any comments!

1

9

37

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

11 months

Many thanks to the Notre Dame Law Review editors for their help on this piece! Link:

Nᴏᴛʀᴇ Dᴀᴍᴇ L. Rᴇᴠ. (Notre Dame Law Review)

@NotreDameLRev

11 months

In "Does the Discourse on 303 Creative Portend a Standing Realignment?", @RichardMRe argues that criticism that 303 Creative was a “fake” case brought by someone because “she worries” is unfounded; the discourse may portend an ideological reversal in federal court jurisdiction.

1

0

4

1

5

33

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

But … scholars do not own the facts they uncover. Imagine if they did!!

Mark Joseph Stern

@mjs_DC

1 year

A trenchant rejoinder from a scholar whose work Clarence Thomas misinterpreted and misrepresented in his venomous affirmative action concurrence.

32

550

1K

3

2

33

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

In recent years, R-appointed federal judges have been criticized for playing to their ideological base and uncritically absorbing ill-founded memes. This behavior is now becoming bipartisan.

Tom Hals

@tomhals

1 year

In one of the first rulings to cite the recent Supreme Court case involving LGBT rights, a Mississippi judge applies the new "worries" test to establish standing.

28

131

512

9

7

35

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

4 years

I’m curious about what’s driving the “record-breaking number of submissions” this cycle. Eg, is this delayed 2020 work? Some authors being extra productive? Is there any data on this? @scholasticaLR

Duke Law Journal

@DukeLawJournal

4 years

Authors: By now many of you have noticed our Scholastica portal has closed. Selection went far more quickly than anticipated, in part because of the record-breaking number of submissions received this year. We recognize this is not the result we promised, and we apologize.

1

6

8

0

34

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

10 months

Draft: “Artificial Authorship and Judicial Opinions.” Comments very welcome!

1

8

34

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Possibly under-appreciated line from Kagan’s Warhol dissent: “the majority does something novel (though in law, unlike in art, it is rarely a good thing to be transformative).”

3

9

32

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Judge Easterbrook in 2004: “Both on and off the bench, Justice Scalia has proclaimed himself a fan of Chevron. It is hard to find thoroughgoing critics of that case and the doctrine it summarizes.” That was 20yrs after Chevron. Another 20yrs later, Chevron may be overruled.

3

2

30

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Woolhandler on “State Separation of Powers and the Federal Courts.” This is an important paper on everything from SB8, to non delegation, to ISLD.

0

6

32

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

4 months

Loper Bright: “In the business of statutory interpretation, if it is not the best, it is not permissible.” I dissent! H/t @ProfDanielLyons

1

3

31

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

11 months

Judicial opinions often start off with language like “opinion concurring in part” or “dissenting” and so forth. What do or should we call that set of expressions?

18

3

32

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

7 months

Alito just now, asking explicitly: isn’t it important that *someone* have standing? This is relative standing, consistent with the subtext of Clapper (by Alito). See below.

4

8

31

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

At oral argument last year in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, Justice Kagan criticized substantive canons and wondered: "Maybe we should just toss them all out...?" Now, this paper:

Ben Eidelson

@beidelson

2 years

I've posted a new draft on SSRN—"The Incompatibility of Substantive Canons and Textualism"—co-authored with my @Harvard_Law colleague Matthew Stephenson. Here's the link, and the abstract is below. Comments very welcome!

2

22

109

2

6

29

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

7 years

The published version of my article "Equal Right to the Poor" is now available @UChiLRev :

0

12

26

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

@JRubinBlogger Yes, I am. I see that Justice Sotomayor quotes the word “worries.” Do you see her arguing there is no standing or jurisdiction? Also, the majority invoked the “credible threat” standard.

4

0

26

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 years

I've posted a draft paper on the Court's treatment of precedent in Janus. Comments welcome!

UCLA Law Review

@UCLALawReview

6 years

Coming up in vol. 66: UCLA’s @RichardMRe will look at the doctrine of “one last chance,” in light of the Supreme Court’s Janus decision.

0

8

27

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

4 months

@rddoerfler Quite a change. “Must”!

3

1

26

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Excited to see the published version of this phenomenal note, “The Common Law of Interpretation” by Christopher J. Baldacci. ⁦ @VirginiaLawRev ⁩.

The Common Law of Interpretation - Virginia Law Review

Courts and commentators have claimed that there is no methodological stare decisis. That is, the Supreme Court’s decision to use purposivism or textualism to interpret a legal text in one case is not...

virginialawreview.org

0

11

26

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Could a similar point apply to law?

Keith Humphreys

@KeithNHumphreys

1 year

Some academics reject the distinction between science and advocacy and then are surprised policymakers don't listen to them. What makes academics credible in the policy world is our rigorous methods and rules of evidence. If we throw those out for the sake of "the cause",

66

308

2K

10

3

26

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

7 months

@steve_vladeck But see

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

7 months

Alito just now, asking explicitly: isn’t it important that *someone* have standing? This is relative standing, consistent with the subtext of Clapper (by Alito). See below.

4

8

31

23

3

25

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Arguably true of all amicus briefs by extension. Briefs joined by a ton of groups, even expert groups, are often/usually just symbolic or the result of politics.

Orin Kerr

@OrinKerr

1 year

@maryrziegler @rachelshelden @kmtani @alahav @TheGNapp @jdmortenson @jackbalkin @SHEARites @n_hold As a general rule, the more signatories, the more terrible the academic group brief is; it suggests people signed on to "support the team," and a lot did, not because they actually agree with (or know much about) what it says. /3

9

5

56

3

5

26

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

This is a serious point. Courts for instance might prefer opaque prose over writing that is clearly wrong or unpersuasive.

5

1

24

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

This comparison makes the rhetoric here even more striking. This isn’t a once-in-a-generation con law ruling that divided 5-4 along ideological lines. Kagan is on the short side of a 7-2 decision regarding copyright, and the majority author is her ideological ally.

Jeff Wall

@jeffreybwall

1 year

It's not the hide-my-head-in-a-paper-bag footnote, but this is pretty saucy.

0

2

26

5

1

26

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

8 months

Balkinization: Richard Re on "The One Big Question" Many thanks to Andy Coan, Rebecca Aviel, David Schwartz, Eunice Lee, Shalev Roisman and Bernadette Wilkinson for putting on the conference!

1

5

26

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

3 months

Bray on “The Purpose of the Preliminary Injunction”

0

6

25

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Justices Thomas and Barrett have offered some deep defenses of their legal views. The result: key claims rest on intuitions that are plausible yet controversial. That isn’t embarrassing. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are ruling illegitimately. It’s just helpful to see.

0

4

26

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 months

“The Constitution of the War on Drugs” by David Pozen This is the full book posted online!

1

9

24

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

4 months

@jacklgoldsmith The post ends: “it has been a fantasy for many years now to think that courts and prosecutors can purge the nation of a law-defiant populist demagogue. Only politics, not law, can do that.”

3

6

23

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Thanks to the students of Sports and Games for making this class a home run! (Err, I mean a slam dunk, err…)

UVA Law School

@UVALaw

2 years

Prof. @RichardMRe ’s course brings lessons on discretion, society and adjudication from the stadium to the classroom. @uva

0

1

9

2

0

22

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

8 months

Today, the legal left often wants to emphasize democracy over judicial power. But that posture is conducive to recent scotus rulings such as Dobbs and Anderson. How to navigate that tension/conflict may be the left’s most pressing intellectual challenge. How can it be done? /1

11

9

24

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

A modest proposal: if you are going to invoke “common sense,” the sense invoked should actually be common.

4

2

24

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 months

@citizenjeff @AshaRangappa_ @earlymodjustice I strongly disagree. This is a difference of opinion, I believe it is in very much good faith, and I am learning from the exchange.

1

0

22

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

7 years

My favorite part of Justice Kennedy's opinion in Packingham.

1

6

23

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

7 months

Pulsifer v. United States as Permissive Interpretation | Re’s Judicata

Pulsifer v. United States as Permissive Interpretation

When someone has a hammer, every problem risks looking like a nail. And when a legal scholar has a theory, every case risks becoming an application of it. With that disclaimer in mind, I think that…

richardresjudicata.wordpress.com

1

8

24

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Guess the source: “But the determination of what is major and what is minor itself raises questions of policy.”

5

2

22

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

8 months

Here’s the video of my recent remarks on the One Big Question shaping legal culture. The prepared text is here:

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

8 months

Balkinization: Richard Re on "The One Big Question" Many thanks to Andy Coan, Rebecca Aviel, David Schwartz, Eunice Lee, Shalev Roisman and Bernadette Wilkinson for putting on the conference!

1

5

26

2

4

21

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

4 months

This appears to be the first use of the term “personal precedent” in a SCOTUS opinion (It’s Justice Gorsuch’s Loper Bright concurrence):

2

22

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Many Dobbs supporters argued that the case returned abortion to the political process, while many critics noted the ruling was unpopular. The Harvard affirmative action ruling flipped those talking points. What can we learn from this?

13

1

23

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

Justice Sotomayor regularly comes in for left criticism when she praises her colleagues, such as for being good people. One mark of an anti-institutionalist justice would be a refusal to do this.

0

1

20

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

8 months

“The most remarkable thing about the Court’s federalism-based resolution, which all nine Justices approved in large measure, is that it was not among the ten or more arguments that the parties… presented to the Court, nor is it… in the many law review articles about Section 3”

Marty Lederman

@marty_lederman

8 months

Some reactions to Trump v. Anderson, especially about what's dividing the Justices. #SCOTUS

1

5

23

2

7

23

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Link:

Maggie Blackhawk

@MaggieBlackhawk

1 year

It has been the greatest honor of my career to write the Foreword for this term's @HarvLRev . I am grateful to have been able to tell this story and to tell it from the heart in such a prominent forum. As always, I dream of a day when words can change minds and hearts--and worlds.

33

190

917

1

3

22

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

What SCOTUS cases this term, if any, significantly moved case law to the left (as opposed to entrenching existing case law)?

Samuel Moyn 🔭

@samuelmoyn

1 year

The court is actually back to moderation, didn’t you know. “What we saw,” David Cole said, “was a reversion to the mean.” 🤦🏻‍♂️

11

6

30

9

3

22

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Remember when the Chief seemed to criticize certain harsh dissents, and Kagan responded? That’s what this is about.

UVA Law School

@UVALaw

1 year

Prof. @RichardMRe examines strategic ambiguity in #SCOTUS opinion writing, most recently Biden v. Nebraska. #appellatetwitter

0

4

7

4

1

22

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

8 months

The Originalist Disaster in Trump v. Anderson by Mike Rappaport

3

9

20

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

9 months

I got to talk about judicial ethics with @RisaGoluboff and @amanda_frost1 . Unsurprisingly, I learned a lot—and had fun, too!

Common Law

@CommonLawUVA

9 months

Should we be regulating the ethics of Supreme Court justices — and how? #UVALaw professors @amanda_frost1 and @RichardMRe join host @RisaGoluboff for the season 6 kickoff.

0

1

4

0

7

21

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

“The Road to a Supreme Court Clerkship Starts at Three Ivy League Colleges” featuring work by George, Gulati, and Yoon

The Road to a Supreme Court Clerkship Starts at Three Ivy League Colleges (Published 2023)

The chances of obtaining a coveted clerkship, a new study found, increase sharply with undergraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale or Princeton.

www.nytimes.com

0

7

20

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 years

@EdWhelanEPPC @benshapiro Yes, @benshapiro seems clearly wrong here. I clerked for Kavanaugh several years ago, and it is hard to imagine a clearer textualist record. Also, Kavanaugh's bracing @HarvLRev piece marks him as a cutting-edge textualist thinker.

1

7

19

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

7 months

Interesting implications for debates on judicial legitimacy. 👇

Sean Strickland

@Coach__Strick

7 months

A GREAT example of why refs get verbally abused at every game ever! 90% (or higher) of people have no freaking clue what the actual rules are!! Announcers were wrong. Fans were wrong. Even the NC State coach was wrong. And I’m guessing most still don’t know they are wrong🤦🏼‍♂️

262

156

2K

1

20

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 years

Another possibility: by declining to time her appointment to politics, RBG promoted norms of judicial neutrality. See

Supreme Retirements and the Habit of Politics

There’s been a lot of debate over the past year or so about whether Justices Ginsburg and Breyer should or will retire in order to maximize the chances that President Obama will be able to na…

richardresjudicata.wordpress.com

Josh Chafetz

@joshchafetz

6 years

Exactly this. She is, from where I sit, a good justice, but hardly irreplaceable. None of them are.

1

0

13

5

4

19

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Listening to recent oral arguments and still noticing this. Advocates talking over justices, not stopping when a justice speaks, interrupting, etc.

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 years

My sense is that there are a lot more “no, let me finish what I’m saying” moments at SCOTUS oral arguments recently—both by justices and by advocates. Anyone else have this impression? Feels like a norm shift.

3

5

60

6

2

20

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

4 months

… Fischer today is a great example. The majority (Roberts) agrees that the dissent’s reading (Barrett) may be “literally permissible”, but emphasizes “the context in which the statute arose.” So the majority is applying the mischief rule and the dissent the literal rule.

5

2

19

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

3 years

Does Textualism Defeat the Major Questions Doctrine?

The major questions doctrine has become, well, a major question of interest at the Supreme Court these days. Some critics, including Justice Kagan, have suggested that at least certain versions of …

richardresjudicata.wordpress.com

1

5

19

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Is it possible that the left’s alarm about SCOTUS cases this term handed the Court a public relations boon? By creating expectations of big losses in so many cases, the left made the Court seem moderate whenever it defied the expectations.

7

2

19

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 years

Important new paper by Pozen, Talley, and Nyarko uses algorithmic methods to study constitutional discourse:

0

2

19

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Not to belabor this, but is it at all plausible that Jackson didn’t “participate in the consideration” of the Harvard case? Her dissent responds to a majority opinion about both cases. And that majority opinion responds to her points!!

4

19

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

1 year

Another front in the standing realignment. Recently, conservatives were standing skeptics in abortion cases brought by doctors, and liberals were enthusiasts. That alignment seems poised to reverse.

5

4

19

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

2 months

On “Legal Realignment”

Law at the Supreme Court has become markedly more conservative in recent years. What is less commented on, but perhaps even more important, is that the nature of legal conservativism has itself cha…

richardresjudicata.wordpress.com

0

8

18

Richard M. Re

@RichardMRe

6 years

Double hearsay, but interesting: "Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals told us recently that his long-time friend and colleague Antonin Scalia told him before he died that even he would not have sought to overturn Roe today."

Howard Bashman

@howappealing

6 years

“The Abortion Scare Campaign: Why Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage are likely to survive after Kennedy.” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

0

2

5

1

7

18