And you may find yourself in a tight Congressional race; And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife; And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful house;” And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful wife!”
mike dewine stands for a lot of things i oppose very deeply, but this exactly the kind of thing we need to be hearing from conservative politicians. a full throated defense of pluralism, immigration and inclusion
I have lived my entire life near this city. Our people and our history deserve better than to be falsely portrayed.
the morally vacuous dipshits who are super active election betters also have a track record of faking news to juice the markets to make a quick buck—and they don’t care about the effects of their disinformation. it’s straight-up fraud.
I have blogged the inevitable DraftKings takeover of Election Night coverage, which I think will make the gambling takeover of sports media feel tasteful and understated by comparison www.fastcompany.com/91194155/pol...
A U.S. appeals court is weighing whether prediction market Kalshi can take bets on elections. Are we really ready to gamble on democracy?
I had a great time in Madison at the State Law and Federal Elections Symposium hosted by the Wisconsin Law Review and @uwlawdemocracy.bsky.social yesterday! I’m grateful to have been able to participate and present “State Executive Branches under Moore v. Harper.”
You may have heard about NE's dueling amendments: one pro-abortion and one anti. If both pass, their non-overlapping parts should all take effect. But as @yeargain.bsky.social observes, the NE GOP is teeing up an argument that the anti-abortion measure should *completely* erase the pro-abortion one
New from me in Guaranteed Republics: Last week, the Nebraska Supreme Court approved the placement of two abortion-related measures on the ballot this year. Republicans may be teeing up an opportunity to nullify abortion rights if both pass:
Dueling ballot measures on abortion don't entirely conflict—but Republicans might say they do
I argue for a balance: If rights-based litigation continues, advocates need to seek targeted, focused relief that could actually make a difference. And rather than “green amendments,” we should push for state constitutional amendments that entrench good environmental policy.
Rights-based litigation won’t and can’t produce discrete policy outcomes as it takes place today—as litigants seek unmanageable and society-altering judicial remedies. It’s also a massive strategic error to empower juristocracy by demanding more judicial involvement in policy.
✨ New from me in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law: “Against Environmental Rights Supremacy.” Environmental rights litigation dominates advocacy efforts around environmental constitutionalism—but it shouldn’t. con.law/print-articl...
Environmental rights are having a moment. Though only eight states and territories have expressed environmental rights provisions in their constitutions, a trickle of positive developments has seemi...
I spent the weekend in Lubbock for the Central States Law Schools Association Conference (which was fantastic!), and while here, felt the psychic force of every lawsuit Ken Paxton has strategically filed in the Lubbock Division and saw prairie dogs in the wild for the first time.
