29671 Followers
904 Following
Professor, Stanford Law School.
Author, The Digital 4th Amendment: https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Fourth-Amendment-Privacy-Policing/dp/0190627077/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0
City condemns buildings on property, posts signs no one can live on property. Property owner lets a man park his trailer on the property and live there. 10th Cir: Man has no 4th Am rights in the trailer, as no one was allowed to live on the property. www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/f...
So if there are cases that reach results you deeply love—decisions that just profoundly resonate with you, and make you proud to be an American and love justice and liberty— you actually hate the decisions and condemn them if they misrepresented the trial record?
The Grassella Oliphant Quartette, One For The Masses, from "Grass Roots" (1965) with Harold Ousley on tenor, Bobby Hutcherson on vibes, Ray McKinney on bass, and Oliphant on drums. Great mid-60s soul jazz that is not widely known. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYro...
Why do you think the immersion approach stomps out original thought? I don’t think it’s any more true than immersion learning in Spanish or Italian stomps out your ability to speak creatively in Spanish or Italian.
"Now that you know what’s in a legal opinion, it’s time to learn some of the common words you’ll find inside them. But first a history lesson, for reasons that should be clear in a minute. In 1066,"
why does it always come back to fuckin Hastings
If you're a 1L starting law school in coming weeks, just remember: You're supposed to feel a bit confused at first. It's normal. Law is like a language. You learn it best through immersion. You'll take a few weeks to get to speed.
This may help, too: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
But I appreciate that you're not making an argument, but rather suggesting that if you had to make one, it would be really good. :)
Let’s just say, as someone who liked the results of almost all the Warren court cases but criticized many of them as judicial activism, that it seems that most people have flipped 180 degrees on those jurisprudential commitments.
Thanks, although think I took all of five pages of notes in the 1st month of Sarge’s class. :)
Wasn't that what the Warren Court was about? That was exactly what we were celebrating.
When I was in law school in the 1990s, they taught us that the Supreme Court's ability to take the law in new and creative directions with no precedential support was the greatest part of law— and that it was wooden and small minded to disagree.
reason.com/volokh/2024/...
When I read reactions to the current Supreme Court from academics today, I'm often struck by the different way that…
