Chris Sprigman

Yeah, but there's negative as well as positive knock-on effects. I'm not donating to *any* Democrats until they stop these texts. And I am less open to Democratic Party messaging, as I am less open in general to messages by people who or organizations that harass me and others.

Pandas too low energy for expressionism, or expression.

I am not 100% opposed to reducing int'l student enrollment, although Trump is doing it in the wrong way and for bad reasons. Universities have become accustomed to using foreign students (who typically pay full tuition) as a cash cow. We end up educating the kids of wealthy foreigners.

And it amazes me that any of the lawyers for these universities think that the Trump administration is going to abide by these agreements and restore funding. They are agreeing to round 1 in a possibly endless series of beatings.

Negotiating With Terrorists, Unsuccessfully How to lose ideological battles by believing in nothing.

Brown has joined Columbia, Penn, and soon (reportedly) Cornell in debauching itself. We're discovering that our elite universities stand for nothing. www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/negotiatin...

In an age where famous people behave absolutely abhorrently without consequences, I was unabashedly delighted to watch Alan Dershowitz reap what he has sown.

I would like to say that soon we'll enter a new age of accountability. But I'll probably have to be satisfied with this, for now.

Why tonight’s earthquake is bad news for Mamdami @nytpitchbot.bsky.social

Why Cortez Masto Tangled With Cory Booker on the Senate Floor

It can be simultaneously true that Catherine Cortez Masto is a complicit DINO and Cory Booker is a showboating do-nothing. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/02/u...

This is a big point. The first step toward making things better is realizing that Trump and MAGA grew out of deep systemic problems. Our system, our institutions--and especially our constitution--are no longer fit for purpose and need fundamental change.

Picking them off one by one.
Hang together or hang separately.

Law schools (especially elite ones) have spent the past nearly half-century trying to become legis academic disciplines and forgot they were professional schools. With some sketchy results ... including the lawyers that we've trained feeling more and more that we aren't relevant.

Adding: You can't do the interdisciplinary approach well by just adding a PhD. You have to be an experienced lawyer. You can't otherwise see the thing you're studying clearly. This is a huge shortcoming of law schools currently. That is ...

100%

3) Law school is going to have to be longer--probably 4 years rather than 3--to do the interdisciplinary approach well, because there are actual skills to master (please can we teach stats?) and that takes time.

2) God we need to get rid of law reviews. They aren't useless; they are pernicious. They are run by students who can't assess scholarship in the context of any particular field, so they chase shiny things. Not their fault, but it's not sustainable.

1) Shift hiring toward those who can work in an interdisciplinary environment. That doesn't just mean JD/Phds. That means people who actually have a discipline *plus* have practiced law (really practiced law, which takes time). Those people aren't found too easily.

Agree, but it's a decades-long process to get from here to there, b/c current law school faculties aren't remotely equipped to teach this way. To get there, we need to ...

For myself, I am unable to imagine a set of punishments harsh enough to satisfy me. And I can imagine quite a lot.

There is nothing from the Democrats that suggests that they intend to hold Trump and his enablers accountable in any real sense. It's a huge missing element. People are angry. They want retribution. They aren't wrong to want that.

Structural barriers to that just so massive. However, a lot of things (almost all bad) have recently happened in the U.S. that I once thought could never happen, so who knows.

Six months in, everything is chaos, and there’s no bottom in sight.

Safe travels.

Chief Justice John Roberts: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

I'm not suggesting we "get rid of judicial review entirely." I'm suggesting Congress use the power Article III gives it to qualify judicial supremacy. Very different thing.

The Supreme Court is very very terrible. And nothing will get better until their power is curbed.

It just blows me away that some Jews have joined so enthusiastically in attacking and substantially undermining institutions that have been so important to the welfare of American Jews.

I went to Penn for undergrad. It is difficult to overstate how central Jewish culture is to Penn's culture. In fact, as a non-Jew, I felt somewhat on the periphery there (although I'm part Jewish on my father's side, with all the complexity of that ...).

It is richly ironic that Columbia and Penn--the two Ivies that were the first to really open up to Jews--are also the places that have been harmed the most by bullshit allegations of institutional antisemitism.

A Constitutional Weapon for Biden to Vanquish Trump’s Army of Judges Republicans have erected a conservative fortress in the federal judiciary. Our founding documents provide the means to knock it down.

No, I'm making a claim growing out of academic work I've done re jurisdiction stripping. Which is explained compactly, here. newrepublic.com/article/1589...

Why not strip their review over this issue? The constitution says nothing explicit about immunity. The court is essentially made it up from whole cloth. Why should it get to do that without a democratic check?