Archives for the month of: April, 2015

JUSTICE Ke: You know, I usually like to think of what word best describes a case, and the word that comes up for me is…..

JUSTICE Sc: Marriage?

JUSTICE Ke: No, millennia. Millennia plus time.

JUSTICE Sc: You do know millennia is a measure of time right? Let’s just cut to the chase. Looking at the dictionary, gay means happy. Courts can’t compel happy marriages. End of textualist story.

JUSTICE T: Stoic silence.

JUSTICE A: Forget about same sex marriage. I want to jump right into whether this opens doors for polygamy.

JUSTICE Sc: Why?

JUSTICE A: Um….no reason.

JUSTICE Sc: Seriously, answer the question. Will I be able to marry a dictionary if we rule in your favor?

JUSTICE Ke: I’m worried about the states. This is all happening so fast. Have they had sufficient time to oppress their citizens?

JUSTICE A: Because we are wearing things close to togas, I would like to bring up gay relations in ancient Greece.

JUSTICE B: I’m deeply concerned about changing the definition of marriage. However, changing election results doesn’t bother me one bit.

JUSTICE Sc: I’m worried that my arch nemesis Posner is writing a book about this as we speak.

JUSTICE T: Silence speaks volumes. My bookcase contains an infinite amount of invisible books about my oral argument thoughts.

JUSTICE A: Do you think the primary purpose of discriminatory laws is to demean people? No, this isn’t a rhetorical question.

JUSTICE Ka: I would ask you a question, but for some reason the guys are being huge homophobes right now and dismissing my questions.

JUSTICE Sc: It’s the anniversary of Carolene Products footnote 4, so really we should let voters decide whether to discriminate against gay people. I don’t see the irony in what I just said.

JUSTICE So: Have you seen what the institution of marriage is like? I’m not sure same sex marriage can demean this institution any further.

JUSTICE Sc: Don’t answer that question. It’s not your burden. Your burden should be to only answer my questions.

JUSTICE RBG: Anyone see the irony of how marriage discussion has now turned to discussions of procreation? Is there another abortion case around the corner?

JUSTICE Ka: Does anyone see the problem of defining marriage as procreation centered?

JUSTICE RBG [looking at Justice Sc]: I’ve thought of one.

PANEL PROPOSAL BY LAWPROFBLAWG:  THE FUTURE OF SCHOLARSHIP

Traditional academic lore is that to make a dent in the halls of academe one must publish. This has in most cases meant publication in student-run law reviews, preferably at the highest U.S. News and World Report ranks. Once tenured, one could progress to writing more articles and a book or two. At other times, it has also meant the publication of a casebook.

The world of legal scholarship has thus seemed isolated. Judges are less inclined to look at law reviews. In response to that, scholars have increasingly taken their scholarship “on the road,” either in the form of amicus briefs in highly notable cases, or by testifying before Congress.

A final realm for scholarship has been social media. Whether utilized to float emerging thoughts among peers, or to promote completed works, social media is now mainstream among academics. A recent survey of academics with twitter accounts demonstrates increasing usage of a medium in stark contrast to that of traditional scholarship.

This panel will explore the future of legal scholarship. What are the legitimate scholarly uses of social media? What are the risks? To what degree has scholarship transformed into activism once it leaves the law review? What is (or should be) the role of law professor experts in court and in the public sphere?

MODERATOR:

Lawprofblawg, an anonymous online persona, scholar, and law professor with an impeccable record of tweeting about AALS.

PANELISTS:

[REDACTED, plus two openings left, let me know if you’re interested in participating]