Philip Huff

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

Alright, a first Substack post, in which I argue that a temporary-presence exception to birthright citizenship is consistent with the Citizenship Clause's text, even if we give the word "jurisdiction" its ordinary meaning:

https://t.co/SugFMX1mv1

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

I have discovered the cure for writer's block. It is to write badly.

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

It has potential to be a “real” holiday, but right now no one knows how to celebrate it.

To me it’s just this day in June in which the Supreme Court won’t issue opinions.

[Patrick Jaicomo @pjaicomo]

It’s impossible to imagine a more pro-freedom American holiday than one celebrating the end of government-sanctioned and government-enforced chattel slavery.

Juneteenth is a great holiday that everyone who values individual liberty should celebrate.

Happy Juneteenth!

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

How many people have lost their jobs so far on account of AI, and how many people have taken jobs attributable to AI? Has anyone computed that?

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@dilanesper Oh; I didn’t mean casting aside all of the precedents that were in place when the given case was decided. I just meant, you’re putting each Court in the position that the Court that actually decided the case was in. (The actual decision at issue isn’t a precedent yet.)

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

I don’t know the answer, of course; but I wonder what percentage of 7-2 or 8-1 cases would be decided the same way as a matter of first impression by (say) all four of today’s Court, the Warren Court, the Taney Court, and the Marshall Court

[Dilan Esper @dilanesper]

To make the broader point rather than just sniping at a few reply guys obsessed with me: if you go back through SCOTUS history, most 8-1 and 7-2 cases were rightly decided, and most 1 justice dissents have been forgotten. Because a supermajority of smart people is likely right.

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@Unlearned_Hand About *future* unreasonable searches and seizures?

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

And yes, this prison abolition stuff is dangerous to the extent that there’s any prospect of its being implemented.

But I’m not very worried about that; the real danger is just people going soft on outrageous crimes (and hard on the innocent, as a necessary consequence).

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

“a man killed another man, didn't know the person, just sitting on a stoop, got a 18-year prison sentence”

Only 18 years for a murder? Even if the death penalty is wrong, it can’t be more wrong than lax sentences that endanger innocent people.

[daniela @daniela__127]

Watch as Darializa Avila Chevalier, prison abolitionist, is asked *four times* how she would handle a murderer, and each time refuses to answer. https://t.co/NFXYotaFx0

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@Greg651 Yeah, but I don’t see why you couldn’t say there’s a heightened clarity requirement when a constitutional right like keeping arms is at issue

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@Greg651 Not wanting to make large numbers of fairly normal people felons under §922(g)

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@Greg651 The problem, IMO, is the Court’s refusal to lay down a general rule by induction and a little reflection, instead of just saying, “well, this looks a bit like this other thing they thought was okay.”

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@Greg651 Is the point any less natural when made under 2A?

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@Unlearned_Hand I don’t like the Bruen framework; but if we’re adopting it, this seems reasonable to me?

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@CharlesHughes62 That would be my bet as well, though cases with significant historical elements don’t seem like his sort of thing

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

Looking at who still hasn’t written for March, my guess is that Roberts or Alito has the birthright citizenship opinion.

Barrett is probably too junior to get the assignment, and Thomas would write a law review article and potentially lose the majority.

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@Greg651 Not sure why Hardiman’s opinion begins as it does, though

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

Embarrassing confession: I don’t have an opinion on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@Vermeullarmine (I don’t think it will work; eventually generalizations from the results will give rise to scary rules that couldn’t be directly derived from 18th century sources.)

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@Vermeullarmine The Bruen “test” is really an anti-test; its main function is prevent intelligible standards from emerging

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

@varadmehta See Hosanna-Tabor; though it was a pure concurrence, not a concurrence in the judgment.

[Philip Huff @Philip_Huff]

So Alito and Kagan are the only ones not to join Gorsuch’s Second Amendment opinion in Hemani… concurring in the judgment instead.

Interesting.