iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

I'm the guy who wrote the algorithm that for whatever reason puts everyone in an aisle seat in the first boarding group

I also actually don't think this conversation can really be disentangled from the substance insofar as attacks on legal liberalism from the "left" are viewed as inherently unserious absent, again, a very particular cachet. it's different than, eg, me saying volokh is wrong about the press clause

130

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 25m

Yeah anytime I take a shot that toes the line I run it past multiple people. as you said I do think relative privilege plays a big role here too. But personally I'm happy to have you lobbing bombs. That's what (relative) privilege is for!

120

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 29m

I view it as very determined by the "venue" point made earlier. I've never felt constrained in taking on, in journal articles, with appropriate tone and deference, etc., anyone in the world. I think there are strong constraints in writing stuff like your shaw piece (& know that is widely felt)

120

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 4h

skimming this post and seeing the picture below it I read it as "what, precisely, makes congressional combatants effective" and was very excited

010

Reposted by LSM

Catherine Rampell @crampell.bsky.social · 16h

Billions of dollars’ worth of contracts predicting oil would fall and the S&P 500 would rise were placed about 15 minutes before Trump announced a U-turn on Iran in a post on Truth Social. CFTC staff began to investigate...then were told to lay off. www.bloomberg.com/news/feature...

bloomberg.com

CFTC Staff Were Told to Retract Analysis of Suspicious Oil Trades

Chairman’s adviser intervened to take over examination of lucrative bets that were made around Trump reversal on Iran power plant attack.

6125301326

Reposted by LSM

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 23h

It’s here!! Wild to have an actual copy of the book I spent 13 years on in my hands! If you want to preorder a copy of The Political Supreme Court, there’s still time before the official release date on October 27: a.co/d/08PThSrx. (Or uncpress.org/978146969713... if you’re avoiding Amazon)

Picture of the book The Political Supreme Court by Rachel A. Shelden.

744080

Reposted by LSM

David Schraub @schraubd.bsky.social · 19h

I *think* (not sure) that the timeline was: 10/7: Scholastica asks if LCLR had space, and they said yes (which they did). 10/10-11: LCLR get a bunch of acceptances and fills the volume. They no longer have space. 10/13: Scholastica sends email saying "LCLR has space!"

151

Reposted by LSM

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 20h

The Scholastica email claimed that they contacted the law review & the law review approved being on the list. I'd be interested in (1) if that's true & (2) what that approval looked like. If Lewis & Clark did knowingly & explicitly approve it, that feels like the law review doing people a disservice

121

Reposted by LSM

Megan @meplusdog.bsky.social · 21h

Scholastica is so cursed

051

Reposted by LSM

Edward Swaine @edswaine.bsky.social · 21h

When one door opens, another door closes, also it is sometimes the same door

071

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 21h

won't stop a state AG if they had the courage!

140

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 21h

This is, by the way, a paradigmatic unfair business practice. Selling raffle tickets to an empty prize pot.

290

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 21h

this system is such a joke I hope scholastica made a million dollars in submissions to Lewis and Clark in the time between those emails

140

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 21h

Hearty lol at two subsequent emails in my inbox being: 1. Scholastica: Lewis and Clark Law Review is still open!!! Submit!!! 2. Lewis and Clark Law Review: we are now closed for submissions

5151

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

(a) I listened to the voicemail and I don't think this is what they said; (b) it was a star wars character who said it:

020

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

Spam calls getting increasingly dire

150

Reposted by LSM

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

the first ever comprehensive treatment of the issue of novelty in legal scholarship is now available:

135215

Reposted by LSM

Tim Watson @timwatson.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

this article goes straight on the syllabus for the next time I teach literature and law, really fills the gap between them in a novel way

061

Reposted by LSM

Ashwini Vasanthakumar @ashwinivasantha.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

This article sparks joy--at last, something truly novel in legal scholarship.

063

Reposted by LSM

Tani Levitt @hateitorlevitt.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

It looks like the ball is moving normal speed in the slomo replay

011

Reposted by LSM

Sharon Brett @sharonbrett.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

This is more of a comment than a question, but I’ll put a question mark at the end to pretend it’s a question: I really think this could be two papers?

051

Reposted by LSM

Noah Chauvin @noahchauvin.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

I began smiling at “falls between the couch cushions of two independent literatures,” and started laughing out loud at “fries the existing literature’s leftover rice.”

091

Reposted by LSM

Colin Carlson @colincarlson.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

fellow academics: this is easily the most important thing you’ll ever read that’s quote tweeted in this post

0102

Reposted by LSM

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

straight to the tenure file

091

Reposted by LSM

Blake E. Reid @chup.blakereid.org · 13/10/2026

Dude this is just a patent application

031

Reposted by LSM

Alexandra Lahav @alahav.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

Definitely a world record for number of metaphors in two screenshots

151

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

Also, not for nothing, people also need to internalize now that Judge Reyes is not, like, obviously and overwhrlmingly convinced by the plaintiffs' claims here

040

Reposted by LSM

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

Actually, I’d recommend this transcript generally. It has some funny moments in it.

MR. BARDWELL: We have had a consulting expert, Your
Honor.

THE COURT:
Because the last time you were before me,
you were like there is all this stuff in the dirt and you're
going to have our expert reports, and I said, "I love expert
reports.
There is nothing more that I love litigating than
deposing an expert."
We talk about that often, right?
So I was like "can't
wait to get to the expert reports, " and then when I was
prepping, I didn't see any expert reports. And then I asked
for the studies from the government, and I got their studies.
MR. BARDWELL: That is definitely coming.
We haven't
done it yet. But what we do know --
THE COURT: Are we going to call it the
Godot report?
MR. BARDWELL: I beg your pardon?
THE COURT: Are we going to call it the Godot report?
MR. BARDWELL: I'm not sure I got the joke, but some
people did.
THE COURT: Mr. Robertson, were you an English major?
MR. ROBERTSON: No, archeology.
THE COURT:
Oh.
Waiting for Godot is a famous play.
Guess what happens at the end of Waiting for Godot?
MR. BARDWELL:
Does the judge rule in the plaintiffs'
favor?

2035358

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

the first ever comprehensive treatment of the issue of novelty in legal scholarship is now available:

135215

Reposted by LSM

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

There is a dangerous tendency of some to call something “the truth” based on an incomplete picture of reality. Too often, people take what has happened in a few high-profile cases — and even then, it’s often more complicated — and insist that there is an across-the-board fact of noncompliance.

150538

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

I have nothing for Judge Reyes but deep respect and a fervent hope that I never practice before her

040

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

well..................... depends on the judge.

160

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

this is related to my theory that a lot of cultural "real American" stuff is more directly downstream of the structural rural bias in our representative institutions than we commonly appreciate

140

Reposted by LSM

Molly Roberts @mollyroberts.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

"You know why I'm furious right now? I was hearing from everybody on plaintiffs' side that this was going to happen and I said repeatedly, no, I trust the government. I trusted you all not to do precisely what you have done."

461601211

Reposted by LSM

Molly Roberts @mollyroberts.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

JR: I don't know how I could have made it any plainer that I did not want what has happened to happen. I have given the government every single benefit of the doubt that it would not do precisely what it has done

161004108

Reposted by LSM

Gabrielle A. Perry, MPH @geauxgabrielle.blacksky.app · 11/10/2026

People also cant believe there is such a thing as “cell rent.” 41 states have it & even if you leave early states like FL make you pay the TOTALITY of your original stay. One Black woman was billed $127,000 ($50 a day for 2,555 days) for the full 7 years of her sentence despite only staying 10 mos

She Only Served 10 Months Behind Bars. Florida Still Slapped Her With A $127,000 Bill.
Under Florida's "pay-to-stay" law, inmates are charged $50 for every day of their sentence—including time they never spent incarcerated.

23511272

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 11/10/2026

it's one thing for these responders to lose the plot on how normalized political violence *will* work out for their politics in the future; it's quite another to have apparently just not noticed how it has worked out already

060

Reposted by LSM

Kevin Elliott @kjephd.bsky.social · 11/10/2026

Fear of violence is invisible but operates to reshape the behavior of political figures, like unobservable dark matter gives shape to the structure of the universe. The age of Trump has reintroduced it into American politics, & is arguably transforming it.

215638

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 11/10/2026

it's also just incomprehensible as an antitrust theory even if you concede it's a group boycott. What's the trade or commerce being restrained? The theory is that the WH can kick anyone it wants out of the pool and it's illegal for the others to refuse to bear the cost of picking up the slack?

050

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

I will say that there's a strong line of commentary and judicial thought that thinks courts have gotten way too indulgent of sealing, anonymous parties, etc.

020

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

there's basically a whole separate framework for access-to-court questions (which sealing falls under), which is significantly more forgiving than baseline strict scrutiny, basically for "we get to decide that the rules don't apply to us" reasons

120

LSM @slukemorgan.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

this, for instance, is a joke

030