Julian Davis Mortenson
@jdmortenson.bsky.social
University of Michigan law professor. Legal historian. Constitutional litigator. Writing a book on executive power in early America. Frazzled dad. Probably kidding.
Faculty bio at http://bit.ly/jdm-bio
Yep for sure. There are plausible versions of this where the internal opponents are disgruntled complainers embarrassing themselves—your last speculation action would add up too
like a here’s what happened tick tock seems like it should be super straightforward and directly quotable. Just weird that we’re still sifting tea leaves
If that’s what happened then the behavior of the BoD is hard to make any sense of. My spidey sense is very skeptical of that sentence—it’s not a quote but the reporter’s summary, and the VERY cagey actual quotes from actual law students don’t make sense if it’s that simple
if it was like, we voted on this like usual, what’s all the other heat and light?
10000% agree if that sentence is accurate then the case is much more straightforward. But it fights not only all the other stories, but the rest of this piece itself.
yes if that’s what happened, but that is at odds with multiple other things the piece says. How would that be an unusual process? But multiple internal quotes defend it as not THAT unusual, citing symposium issues [!???!] as precedent
super weird that neither side has said “it went down like this”. The acts have to be good for SOMEONE, right???
I can imagine scenarios that would be such a betrayal of trust and abuse of authority as to require intervention in defense of academic standards as mediated thru standing evaluation processes. No idea if they happened here! But like either they did or they didn’t. Either way, super weird that
like, the EIC is not a dictator pursuant to a sword thrown from a pond by a watery tart. They speak for “the review” pursuant to specific processes and structural authorities. Ditto the EAE
if the EIC says hey send me a piece and we’ll publish it as an article, that’s an abuse of process and o power (right??)
just feels like those facts are either totally exculpatory or kinda troubling—and either way why hasn’t the people for whose side the facts are good just said them??
It’s just weird not to know almost anything about the key issue—was the process an abuse of power? Either yes or no—right??
yeah it was definitely solicited but by whom organizationally, and subject to what assessment process after the manuscript was received
Just seems like, if it was all cool, that’s easy to say and describe without caveat or misdirection. Right?
But on the other hand, if it wasn’t on the up and up, shouldn’t there be some leak by now with specifics??
Weird.
Screen shots from this article www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/06...
these statements seem very, very carefully formulated
given that this whole thing turns on charges of academic integrity failures, it seems v odd that we still don’t know how the piece was solicited and accepted
Just seems like if it was all cool, that’s easy to say and describe. And if it wasn’t on the up and up, shouldn’t there be some leak by now with specifics?? Weird.
Screen shots from this article www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/06...
these statements seem very, very carefully formulated
genuinely odd—given that this whole thing turns on charges that the process lacked academic integrity—that we still don’t know how the piece was solicited and accepted
we need a well reported piece breaking down the inner maneuverings of this one law school's law review's process that isn't just stenography!! ...wait, what, there are other priorities in the world? ; )
thanks for this — it's the most recent thing i've seen too. there's stuff in here that leaves me feeling pretty concerned about the position the board was left in. but also, of course, the board is savvy operators so would know how to write it to suggest exactly that.
also kind of ... wild that i am consciously not asking this question on twitter. is my speech being supressed? i mean ... no? But also, ...not no? the world is a complicated place [now we see the violence inherent in the system gif]
both strike me as plausible stories in these our united states
i'd really just like to know more, and i envy people who look at these two scenarios and find themselves saying OBVIOUSLY ITS A, or alternatively OBVIOUSLY ITS B
: (
i'm ready to believe EITHER (a) the risk averse board is fed up with the activism already, and lashed out unjustifiably; or (b) process irregularities in accepting the piece were so grave as to compromise academic integrity and fail to reflect The Journal's legit choice as an institution
Would really really like to hear an actual careful description of how the article was picked up. "Secret and irregular" seems bad? And there are v serious people on that there board? Perhaps it's just Trumpster opinion suppression! But legit wd be nice to know more about what literally happened.
do you know what's the best available description of the process irregularities on the accept side? feels like what actually happened should not be so very hard to identify, student bodies and law faculties both leakier than the titanic
do you know what's the best available description of the process irregularities on the accept side? feels like what actually happened should not be so very hard to identify, student bodies and law faculties both leakier than the titanic
12345
6789 10
11 12
What are some numbers in your field that anyone else in it would identify without even thinking about it, but folk outside may have no idea.
Just the numbers, no explanations. Yet.
105 148 210 297 420 594 841 1189
post a *perfect* album from the 90s that isn't nirvana, pearl jam, soundgarden, or alice in chains.
post a *perfect* album from the 90s that isn't nirvana, pearl jam, soundgarden, or alice in chains.
NICHOLSON NODDING GIF
bsky.app/profile/jdmo...
once again i am begging people to be clear in their own minds about the distinctions between ideology, politics, and partisanship
and i'm not even disagreeing *on some valid definitions of the term 'political'* that the faithful attempt etc is a political commitment. of course it is.
but it's not speaking in the same register as people who are saying 'the court is just being political here'
LOL i don't even have a strong affirmative definition of political, but where the definition of 'political' in debates about whether the supreme court is acting appropriately includes positions like 'trying to apply the law faithfully,' then we have lost any value to the term
ok last small question:
do you think that law is capable of constraining outcomes beyond the sheer 'i want X and not Y' instincts of the decisionmaker? if the answer is yes, then that's what's special about law. if the answer is no then jeez o pete mr crit
if the meta commitment to a system that requires me to sometimes decide allocations of goodies on a basis other than what i personally prefer is itself political, then we have no vocabulary to talk about a really important, really real difference. and i reject that.
humbly, ofc ; )
here's a very very simple starting point - 'i'm deciding this case on some ground other than how i would allocate the goodies as emperor' is to at least some extent nonpolitical in a useful sense of the concept of nonpolitical
if you're defining 'trying to follow the law within the standard understandings of doing law' as being political, then you're denying the *possibility* of a special role for legal thinking, and that's just incorrect.
IMHO : )
but, like, does "the supreme court is just being political here" have (1) any meaning, and/or (2) any value as a claim?
i think it does. and to that extent i think the trivial definition of "being political" is not interesting or useful w/r/t the convo i'm talking about above
if judges are political then political actors are to varying degrees constrained by the law depending on their role and individual personalities and we're back where we started in an external discussion of how to evaluate the courts behavior
i guess the very short answer is that, if everything is political then calling something political doesn't signify anything
like, ok, what i think about the respect neighbors owe each other is political, and so is what i think about what kinds of foods i shouldn't eat, and so is what i think about how schools should address conflicts among middle schoolers, and and and.