Профиль

Does that remain true if you give it notes from your class?

Right, but even in the abstract I don’t see the problem with people invoking their 5th Amendment rights when the body charged with receiving the testimony doesn’t use the tools available to it to object.

I’m not sure any limiting principle is needed at this stage. Has Congress attempted to rule on his invocation?

This I don't know.

I think you may be talking past each other. Fauci's claim of self-incrimination, flimsy or not, can't be overcome in a prosecution for the crime he's seeking to shield himself from. That doesn't mean it's a necessarily a defense to contempt.

Though they can still so decide by ruling on his invocation, right? If he persists in not speaking, Congress's remedy is to hold him in contempt. If he's subsequently prosecuted, the validity of his invocation would be adjudicated.

I think the bigger obstacle wouldn’t be the pardon power in itself but Trump v US, under which the pardon could not be used as evidence in the criminal case.

#textualism

I took the public post to be saying that accommodations are needed for some students but that the means of assessing who is eligible for accommodations is flawed, which seems right to me.

And Five Eyes partners at that.

An employer who thinks those skills obsolete can discount grades accordingly.

I’m not convinced as yet that AI changes my answer to that question. It certainly has changed much (but far from all) legal practice, but I see my job as assessing a set of reasoning and organizational skills that are portable across practice areas and technologies.

How do closed book exams reintroduce discrimination? It wouldn’t affect whether students get accommodations. (Genuinely curious.)

Agree that both things are true. I would also note as a former journalist that getting all of official Washington in the same place and plying them with alcohol is a neat trick, and to remember the axiom that if something is free, you’re the product.

I think the most charitable reading is that he's entertaining a slippery slope wherein all decisions not to be maximally charitable makes you responsible for the suffering of others, which can't be right. The problem is "responsible for" is a *moral* claim that can't be evaluated in the abstract.

I think changing the terms of legal debate is a standard for success if it happens by persuading other scholars of the soundness of one's argument (which isn't what happened here). A pedantic point, maybe, but I don't want it to be lost that real-world impact is a fine ambition for a legal scholar.

Right. It's been a minute, as they say.

Congrats, Steve! I look forward to diving in.

Not looking forward to playing out that parenthetical.

Might it be that a stronger push for PR shifts the Overton window on the aggressive "fair districting" you favor?