Jerry Edwards

Today I learned that Atlanta has a White House replica and it’s currently on sale for 35 mil

www.zillow.com/homedetails/...

A brilliant investment lol.

It's my favorite class exercise day. When I have my students take a literacy test. "I would pass it!" I always tell them no because the point is for the person to fail.

While we're at it, next time, I hope we won't allow white supremacists to nullify the transformative changes to the constitutional order for generations. Though, they're certainly trying to do it again now (and succeeding to a degree).

Insights in how he thinks about the presidency. Break the law and see if someone says something. I think the NCAA would find that a lot of their top athletes would be even less willing to stay in school.

Even if you are lucky enough to have legal representation, which in immigration must be funded by yourself (or pro bono counsel) how do your lawyers rep you in this system? Not to mention how does your family find you? not due process

The slurs somehow have more agency than the Republicans.

The “NYT actually assigns agency to the people doing the thing” headline challenge remains unwon.

You never know when you might need a large number of fountain pen inks. You're just planning ahead, Hannah. 😉

What's the broader topic of the article?

Samuel Alito's jurisprudence

Past-you knew that he did not have the answer, but he was confident future-you would figure that section out. Corey, you can't let Corey down. 😉

so it's the Department of Random-Ass Regime Change Intervention That Definitely Isn't the W-Word then?

I see our demand letter did not remedy the problem. I take no pleasure in saying this, my friend. We will see you in court. 😉

I look forward to reading this. Greer is an excellent scholar and I'm sure this work is top notch. Just having researched personhood under criminal homicide laws, I know the history is a mess. But, the commonness of miscarriages strongly points against a historical belief in fetal personhood.

This is fascinating, Ally! It is the sort of thing I occasionally thought about while in practice, so I am delighted that you are giving it scholarly attention. I am looking forward to reading it.

Now on SSRN and looking for a good home - "The Case for Professional Disobedience"

Using healthcare professionals as a case study, the Article meets this perilous moment in U.S. history by thinking seriously about disobedience as a response to institutional failures
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Congrats, Jacob! Well deserved. I'm looking forward to reading it!

DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING AND THE LIMITS OF FIRST AMENDMENT LEGALISM 17 U.C. IRVINE L. REV. ___ (forthcoming) Jacob M. Schriner-Briggs* The second Trump administration has unleashed a wave of repressive activity targeting civil society’s most prominent institutions: news media, universities, law firms, and more. Political scientists have responded to these episodes with warnings of “democratic backsliding” while legal scholars invoke the same phenomena as proof that the freedom of speech is in “crisis.” This Article begins by bridging these diagnoses, arguing that the United States’s crisis of free speech is best understood as but one important dimension of its ongoing crisis of democracy. Given this understanding, the Article’s primary contribution is to assess whether the First Amendment, interpreted and implemented by courts, can secure free speech against an executive branch intent on suppressing it. While the First Amendment has supported important rulings against the administration, the Article’s basic conclusion is that reformers seeking to unwind the speech crisis must ultimately look beyond it. Though First Amendment doctrine can slow down an overtly censorious government, it suffers from major blind spots the second Trump administration has routinely exploited. Moreover, even when litigants are able to press First Amendment claims, the administration has engaged in “legalistic noncompliance,” strategies that frustrate lower court proceedings and which have frequently been countenanced by the Roberts Court. The legalism of doctrine and courts can serve speech-protective functions. Yet the crisis at hand, itself downstream from an anti-democratic politics, must be met with responses forged through democratic processes and implemented by democratic institutions. The best long-term hopes for free speech, in other words, lie more in democratic politics than constitutional law.

"Democratic Backsliding and the Limits of First Amendment Legalism" is forthcoming in the U.C. Irvine Law Review. I hope to have it SSRN-ready by the end of April. If you'd like to take a look beforehand, let me know. Comments welcome!

An original Nashville sit-in member, along with Diane Nash, James Bevel, and John Lewis. Trained in non-violence by James Lawson. At age 21, he signed a will before the Freedom Rides, knowing he could die.

May his soul be at peace, and may we all have such courage in the face of oppression.

Oh no, I can't believe all those slurs forced themselves into that defenseless group chat!

Serving only one term isn't a benefit. It means we'll have no incumbency advantage in the future. It's why somebody younger (who didn't have Nazi tattoos) should be running.

They're both too old and should not run for election or reelection again. Maine Democrats need to find a better candidate. We don't need an 79 year old freshman senator or a guy who has so many ties to extremism.

Are your co-authors from your forthcoming article presenting? 🙃

His take on how the legal system can be weaponized was especially insightful:
"After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims."

Arguing for GA before SCOTUS (and against the VRA), E. Freeman Leverett admitted that the state had committed offenses in the past, but that was over by now (sound familiar??). Instead, he argued, the VRA was enacted after a "mob" in Selma was "threatening revolution and rebellion in the streets"

The Bygone Era of Supreme Court Support for Voting Rights Sixty years after upholding the Voting Rights Act, the Court has dismantled most of it.

Tomorrow marks the 61st anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama. It also marks the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court first upholding the Voting Rights Act.

We have gotten so, so far away from a Court that cares about democracy.

New from me at @brennancenter.org:

Exactly right.

The Civil Rights Division was able to show that it took exhaustive (and exhausting) work to litigate even the most obvious violations of the voting rights protections in the 1957 and 1960 acts, which ultimately convinced Congress and then SCOTUS that a much broader law was needed.

Eyeing Voting Rights, Liberals Aim to Secure Wisconsin’s Supreme Court through 2030 - Bolts After flipping the court in 2023, Wisconsin liberals now hope to expand their majority on a body that could be a critical backstop for voting rights during the next presidential election.

NEW: Believe it or not, it’s that time of year: the Wisconsin Supreme Court election is next month.

Liberals have a huge opportunity: if they win, they can lock down the majority of this court thru 2030.

That means they’d have it in the next presidential race, a big democracy guardrail.

Share:

The real hero of the hour was Joe Neguse. Do you know how hard it is to explain: (a) no-bid contacts v.competitive bid contracts; (b) company incorporation; and (c) sub-contracting in FIVE minutes. As an Admin Nerd, I lost my mind.

Snickers, get off the cat!

Cat? What cat?