Michael Smith

"where did this constitutional provision come from and what mischief was it trying to solve or what ideal was it trying to achieve" remains undefeated as an interpretative starting point (but not an ending point)

It's "magic" per religious scholars.

Now Cracker Barrel Diehards Think the Food Isn’t Up to Scratch, Either The embattled Southern-style chain is seeking to rebuild its critical holiday business after the logo controversy.

Oh no!!

www.wsj.com/business/ear...

Quentin Tarantino lurking behind Paul Dano and glaring. Paul Dano is labeled "my articles" and QT is labeled "law review editors"

Soon

A squirrel in a tree with its front paws folded against its chest, looking disgusted.

Looks like this campus squirrel listened to oral arguments today

AAUP statement calling on the university of Oklahoma to publicly defend the graduate TA’s academic freedom and to defend her and all instructors from harassment

OU @aaup.org statement

The water pistol from Rudolph. Someone filled him with jelly and then acted like it was a personal flaw of his.

The water pistol that squirts jelly did not belong on the Island of Misfit Toys. Just stop filling him with jelly, you idiots.

I walked two miles to a lunch meeting only to get stood up, BUT I listened to this on the walk, so it's still a win.

If I were writing an article to influence pending litigation, I'd at least choose a title that wouldn't take up the whole brief.

"The New Substantive Due Process" - repository.law.umich.edu/articles/3065/

And another powerful example of the argument I made in papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

In Praise of Generative AI By Michael L. Smith, The Terrible Lawyer, The Worst Client, The Lazy Judge, The Horrible Professor, The Disengaged Student, and The Sovereign Citizen Abstract I team up with several of the Worst People You Will Ever Meet in Law to discuss and defend generative AI. After introducing themselves, these actors explain how this technology is a godsend. The awful lawyer describes how he remains asleep at the wheel and turns over motions, briefing, and client counseling to erratic AI, Terrible clients explain how they now prepare all legal documents themselves and refuse to pay attorneys’ unwarranted fees. The lazy judge describes how AI is a suitable stand-in for party submissions and how generative AI takes on the difficult task of reasoned judgment. The horrible law professor describes how he’s outsourced teaching, assessment, and scholarship to a machine. The disengaged law student explains how she uses AI to circumvent in-class discussions and out-of-class assignments. And the sovereign citizen explains how he’s able to generate more unfounded nonsense and engage in paper terrorism at a scale never before seen. Unsurprisingly, these actors are all huge fans of generative AI. I close with reflections on what this might mean for the technology’s use in legal spaces, including the need for both advocates and critics of generative AI to consider how the technology will be misused and abused. Finally, I warn that prolonged generative AI usage might transform otherwise reasonable individuals into my terrible coauthors.

Back on my bullshit. Let me know if you're interested in reviewing the draft!

Well this is creative. The sanction for filing a brief with AI hallucinated cases is to actually read the cases cited in the opinion imposing the sanctions.

www.law360.com/articles/241...

Supreme Betrayal: How the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Have Failed America News Podcast · Sitting in their marble palace, dressed in their black robes, Supreme Court Justices would like us to believe that they are wise and disinterested oracles dispensing words of truth and ...

I had a very lively discussion with Mike Seidman and @marktushnet.bsky.social about whether we need courts to protect free speech. It was a very generative convo, in part bc we disagreed so much but share I think political aims, generally. Check it out: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s...

"Liberty" is a Big Word, and That’s OK A recent abortion rights decision in North Dakota demonstrates that the distinction between “fundamental” and “non-fundamental” rights doesn’t always make sense in state constitutional jurisprudence. 

NEW: Judges and lawyers struggle to distinguish between “fundamental" and "non-fundamental rights," since some courts have said natural rights guarantees protect the former but not usually the latter. But as @ijsanders.bsky.social argues, that paradigm is over. "Most just don't realize it yet."

UE(R)T Originalism: Where the original meaning is unclear, the interpretation of a Republican President takes precedent over tradition, precedent, and text.

Word limits!

Fong's Pizza - East Village, Des Moines, IA Home of the original Crab Rangoon pizza and other zenfully delicious appetizers, pizzas, rice bowls and desserts. Think Chinese Cheese Sticks, Thai Chicken pizza, and incredible tiki drinks....

road trip: fongspizza.com

Yes indeed! Especially when prison time is part of the stakes!

Originalists' insistence that this isn't worth a damn remains one of the key defects with the theory. History is just one part of the picture!

It distinguishes it from AI generally, which includes many forms of technology (machine learning, search algorithms, etc.) that I don't address in the piece (and which, itself, is little more than an empty buzzword without the qualifier).

In Praise of Generative AI By Michael L. Smith, The Terrible Lawyer, The Worst Client, The Lazy Judge, The Horrible Professor, The Disengaged Student, and The Sovereign Citizen Abstract I team up with several of the Worst People You Will Ever Meet in Law to discuss and defend generative AI. After introducing themselves, these actors explain how this technology is a godsend. The awful lawyer describes how he remains asleep at the wheel and turns over motions, briefing, and client counseling to erratic AI, Terrible clients explain how they now prepare all legal documents themselves and refuse to pay attorneys’ unwarranted fees. The lazy judge describes how AI is a suitable stand-in for party submissions and how generative AI takes on the difficult task of reasoned judgment. The horrible law professor describes how he’s outsourced teaching, assessment, and scholarship to a machine. The disengaged law student explains how she uses AI to circumvent in-class discussions and out-of-class assignments. And the sovereign citizen explains how he’s able to generate more unfounded nonsense and engage in paper terrorism at a scale never before seen. Unsurprisingly, these actors are all huge fans of generative AI. I close with reflections on what this might mean for the technology’s use in legal spaces, including the need for both advocates and critics of generative AI to consider how the technology will be misused and abused. Finally, I warn that prolonged generative AI usage might transform otherwise reasonable individuals into my terrible coauthors.

Back on my bullshit. Let me know if you're interested in reviewing the draft!

Watching a bunch of AI companies' ads for a piece I'm working on and somehow becoming even more radicalized against the technology

One can only hope

If SCOTUS sides with the gov, it will drastically change our conception of American citizenship and lead to children being rendered stateless.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

has anyone else noticed that food tasted better in the past? it was mushy and easy to eat. and the spoon would come at you like an airplane

Agree, and I've found practice questions to be a nice, lower-stakes outlet for my fun writing nonsense.

And, if it's truly terrible, I'll just make a law review article out of it.

My (personal) short answer: whatever time you can spare, see if you can give academic legal writing a shot and, if you manage to get a piece out and find the process interesting and engaging, consider applying for a fellowship or VAP.

My long answer is here: smithblawg.blogspot.com/2023/07/goin...

Me writing the exam question: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!

Me writing the rubric: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.

This makes perfect sense to me and I've often wondered how, say, lawyers who use AI to write briefs expect to effectively argue their positions in court.