Christopher Sprigman

  • Non-Sequiturs: 10.14.18
    Non-Sequiturs

    Non-Sequiturs: 10.14.18

    * Adam Feldman examines the historical record to look at how Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s brutal confirmation process could affect his jurisprudence. [Empirical SCOTUS]

    * And Joel Cohen looks at how Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation fight might affect his judging of the accused. [Law and Crime]

    * Meanwhile, David Oscar Markus argues that criminal defendants in federal court get treated much worse than Justice Kavanaugh. [The Hill]

    * Jemele Hill points out the support and sympathy for Justice Kavanaugh from a possibly surprising quarter: African-American men. [The Atlantic]

    * Packing the Supreme Court? There ought to be a constitutional amendment about that, Jim Lindgren says. [Volokh Conspiracy / Reason]

    * In fact, is it time for progressives to fight against, rather than within, the courts? Howard Wasserman offers thoughts on the recent Slate debate between Daniel Hemel and Christopher Jon Sprigman. [PrawfsBlawg]

    * Patrick Gregory reports on the latest controversy in the world of lower-court nominations: the ABA’s “not qualified” rating of Eighth Circuit nominee Jonathan Kobes. [Big Law Business]

    * Edmund Zagorski has multiple legal challenges to his execution (which is now on hold); former federal defender Stephen Cooper looks at the one based on the method of execution. [Tennessean]

    * Congratulations to Pedro Hernandez on the dismissal of his case — and to his counsel, Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel, on the great result.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2YPLmtwkug

  • Non-Sequiturs: 08.12.18
    Non-Sequiturs

    Non-Sequiturs: 08.12.18

    * Thanks to the not-so-orphaned Kennedy clerks, this Term could see a record number of clerks at the Supreme Court, as Tony Mauro reports. [National Law Journal]

    * Speaking of clerks, I talk quite a bit about them and their role in this interview with Kaley Pillinger about my writing career (from Underneath Their Robes to Above the Law to Supreme Ambitions (affiliate link)). [The Politic]

    * Speaking of SCOTUS, and more specifically of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the high court, Ed Whelan responds to the arguments of Senate Democrats against — yes, against — the prompt provision of records from Kavanaugh’s years as White House counsel. [Bench Memos / National Review]

    * If Judge Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh, how will that affect the Court’s business jurisprudence? Adam Feldman has this analysis. [Empirical SCOTUS]

    * The failure of Ryan Bounds’s Ninth Circuit nomination could be a “teachable moment” for Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.), according to Will Folks. [FITSNews]

    * Speaking of disappointing failures to confirm, Paul Mirengoff shares my frustration over the inexcusable delays in Department of Justice confirmations. [Power Line]

    * It’s unfair to dismiss Seinfeld as “a show about nothing”; episodes offer insight into numerous legal issues — for example, the law of conspiracy. [Seinfeld Law]

    * Kal Raustiala and Christopher Jon Sprigman offer interesting reflections on how data-driven authorship might affect the way we think about creativity and copyright. [Volokh Conspiracy / Reason]

    * If you’re interested in litigation finance, there’s a conference coming up next month here in New York that you might want to check out. [LF Dealmakers Forum]