From today’s story in the Post:
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according
Adam Unikowsky has a fascinating Substack article about running SCOTUS briefs through Claude 3 (h/t Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution). Here’s a taste:
. . . I decided to do a little more empirical testing of AI’s legal ability. Specifically,
At the VTLA’s annual meeting earlier this month, Kyle McNew moderated an appellate panel featuring Justice Mann and Judges Malveaux and Ortiz. High-level takeaways:
The Court of Appeals of Virginia recently handed down its opinion in Tatusko v. Commonwealth, 79 Va. App. 721 (2024). It’s a reckless-driving case where the defendant was clocked doing 103 in a 60 mph zone. Tatusko doesn’t strike me
Jesse Wegman has an editorial in The New York Times about the challenges of teaching constitutional law in the current environment. This should give you a flavor of the proceedings:
Under the pretense of practicing so-called originalism, which claims to
I am an introvert and a try-hard. This makes me a lot of fun at parties. (Just kidding I never get invited to parties.) It also means that I encounter most of the words I see in print as opposed
The Court of Appeals of Virginia handed down its opinion in Ho v. Rahman today. Ho is an adverse-possession case and a published opinion, but I’m not so interested in the merits. I’m much more interested in the opinion’s treatment
Last week, the VBA’s appellate practice section put on a top-notch panel on perspectives in appellate advocacy. The panelists were Judge Friedman of the CAV, Erin Ashwell, and Matt McGuire, with Kendall Burchard moderating.
Judge Friedman, in particular, stressed a
Christmas is always a super-stressful time of year for me, but not for any of the normal reasons that plague sane people. My problem is that the people who know and love me tend to get me books–which makes sense,
An anonymous reader asks if Virginia’s appellate courts are ratcheting down on the use of motions to reconsider to preserve error.
Here’s the background: Traditionally, appellate counsel have used motions to reconsider to clean up the record and preserve new
