In this article, I draw on state constitutional interpretation practices to urge an explicitly pluralist approach to constitutional interpretation. I argue that doing so promotes transparency and is in line with existing practices of state and federal courts. Comments are welcome!
I do use that latter point about repeat players to question the wisdom of putting control over the argument of crucial cases in the hands of a few elite advocates, though.
I address both of these questions, and more, in the article! In short, the conservative supermajority is certainly a concern, though maybe only got certain cases. I do think repeat players will use it, as they need to appeal to clients first, though it may also complicate things.
Enjoy the article as much as possible. It will be such a huge and constant part of your life, that you'll end up getting tired and impatient with it. You'll end up despising it if you start out thinking it's only tolerable.
Here are a few of the year's highlights! Overall, a ton of law content, with ecology/nature books being my main source of comfort reading.
I exceeded my yearly goal of reading my height in books! Getting the stack together was a challenge, though.
Awesome! Hope to see you!
I suspect I'll be doing more emailing (especially to those I cite in a new work). I also hope to write short versions of work for outlets with wider audiences that connect back to my scholarship, but that's a fair amount of work compared with what Twitter used to allow.
I include deliverables that progress to the final draft (topic, research plan, simple outline, detailed outline, paper draft...) along with meetings about each one to talk through the progress, capped off with in-class presentations. Not a complete solution, but it makes ChatGPT less helpful overall