Julian Davis Mortenson

@jdmortenson.bsky.social

1486

Followers

623

Following

814

Posts

University of Michigan law professor. Legal historian. Constitutional litigator. Writing a book on executive power in early America. Frazzled dad. Probably kidding.

Faculty bio at http://bit.ly/jdm-bio

Posts Replies Media

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

Reply to

Pwnallthethings

"we made the transistors so small that we have to think about quantum tunnelling of electrons" is, bafflingly, an actual thing

not sure I realized the extent to which the vanguard concept seems maybe to have originated w Robespierre—or at least via him as a signal boost?? I’d totally though of that as Marxist in origin Does anyone else know similar uses that predate him? Outside of city of god religious community context

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

I missed Vance’s comments comparing the 2020 election to 1876 a few days ago but it’s wild how this reference won’t die. @erikalexander.bsky.social & I wrote about it back in 2021 www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021... & @jbouie.bsky.social offers a good rebuttal here www.nytimes.com/2024/06/15/o...

Opinion | J.D. Vance’s Strange Turn to 1876www.nytimes.com A look at the senator’s defense of Donald Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election.

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

One fun but little known fact about the election: in 1878, Democrats determined to investigate supposed Republican fraud in the election in what was known as the Potter Commission. The Commission turned up a series of coded telegrams and when an intrepid newspaperman cracked the code 1/2 🗃️

Opinion | J.D. Vance’s Strange Turn to 1876www.nytimes.com A look at the senator’s defense of Donald Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election.

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

Exciting to see my recent paper, Firearms Carceralism, now out in the Minnesota Law Review! Grateful for terrific student editors & helpful comments from so many folks. Full paper here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

these statements seem very, very carefully formulated given that this whole thing turns on charges of academic integrity failures, it seems v odd that we still don’t know how the piece was solicited and accepted

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

Great opening night for the American Political History Conference, @kmtani.bsky.social @gauthamrao.bsky.social @jdmortenson.bsky.social! Enjoyed hearing views on courts, democracy & the (mis)use of history in big cases. Missed @rachelshelden.bsky.social, but her work’s influence was in the dialogue!

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

Note: There are dozens of documents in here that I am making readily available for the first time. Due to PACER, I had to pay for many of them. I did so, and they're now free to all here and via CourtListener. A paid subscription to Law Dork helps support that: www.lawdork.com/subscribe

New at Law Dork, @chrisgeidner.bsky.social's two-part, in-depth report on the two-year investigation that Alabama federal judges—all GOP appointees—have conducted into LGBTQ civil rights lawyers fighting anti-trans laws. 1️⃣ — www.lawdork.com/p/alabama-ju... 2️⃣ — www.lawdork.com/p/alabama-ju...

Alabama federal judges forced LGBTQ advocates into a long, secretive "inquiry"www.lawdork.com Part 1: An April 2022 order questioning if LGBTQ civil rights lawyers engaged in "judge shopping" in challenging an anti-transgender law prompted a two-year investigation.

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

I lost this weekend, but if you haven't seen one yet you're still eligible to play

everyone is the world is playing CYBERSTRUCK, the fun new mandatory game in which you are eliminated when you see your first cybertruck in the wild rules are similar to whamageddon, but with no end date: • the cybertruck must be real, in the wild • as soon as you notice the cybertruck, you are out

Would really really like to hear an actual careful description of how the article was picked up. "Secret and irregular" seems bad? And there are v serious people on that there board? Perhaps it's just Trumpster opinion suppression! But legit wd be nice to know more about what literally happened.

do you know what's the best available description of the process irregularities on the accept side? feels like what actually happened should not be so very hard to identify, student bodies and law faculties both leakier than the titanic

12345 6789 10 11 12

What are some numbers in your field that anyone else in it would identify without even thinking about it, but folk outside may have no idea. Just the numbers, no explanations. Yet. 105 148 210 297 420 594 841 1189

post a *perfect* album from the 90s that isn't nirvana, pearl jam, soundgarden, or alice in chains.

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

Reply to

Julian Davis Mortenson

FWIW, it sounds about right to me. Here is a bit of larger-n evidence from the Martinez & Tobia survey of legal academics. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Like, this whole thread? This is not JDM thinking the the CFPB case is predictively checkmate to separation of powers adventurism. This is JDM flagging tools for pressing that part of the decisional process that *is* responsive to internally driven desire for consistency and normal legal behavior

Today’s CFPB appropriations case recognizes that the 1789 Constitution created an incredibly thin structural government framework, leaving virtually all decisions about how to run the railroad for Congress to decide. This is great news! But wait there’s more… 1/🧵 www.reuters.com/legal/us-sup...

US Supreme Court backs consumer finance watchdog agency's funding mechanismwww.reuters.com The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism in a challenge brought by the payday loan industry, handing a victory to President Joe Biden's administration and a setback to the agency's conservative critics.

once again i am begging people to be clear in their own minds about the distinctions between ideology, politics, and partisanship

curious whether law profs think this is way off base

If claim is that most law profs think the "best" reading of present doctrine does real work for a lot of judges in a lot of cases, that *might* be right But it's clearly not the case that most law profs think SCt decisions in controversial politically salient cases is just them figuring out the law

this is a really nice point

Great thread. Something that’s troubled me re this Court’s admin jurisprudence is its unstated presumption that language in the Constitution is due a thick reading just by virtue of being in the Constitution, as though the Framers couldn’t have thought it worthwhile to include thin provisions.

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

wait what

Another way to think about this is that every day ChatGPT uses a typical US family’s electrical consumption for 65 _years_. That’s the better part of a lifetime and they’re doing it to make computers less reliable.

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

I knew this, but holy shit anyway.

which actors expression will stay with you forever?

Which actor's expression will stay with you forever?

20something JDM deeply resents his future self’s enjoyment of John Mayer

that moment when you know the anonymized school in some story isn’t U of M 😂

When I suggested that this may lead to "non-star" faculty disengaging or leaving, they were nonplussed. One said he'd let them walk if it meant keeping the "stars." He proudly said: "I'm going to feed my eagles." Which I found very weird, but anyway.

Bluesky will you be here for me on my twitter hiatus?

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

Reply to

Gautham FC

The kids are alright! Students in my "Supreme Court in History, History in the Supreme Court" class read West Virginia v. EPA and @jdmortenson.bsky.social's amicus brief today and boy did they have questions about originalism, too.

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

I love my writing group. Today, while discussing my admittedly historiography-deficient draft, they coined the term "historiography jail" to describe the paragraph where you stick all that stuff 😆 @lmchervinsky.bsky.social @rachelshelden.bsky.social @jdmortenson.bsky.social @lizcovart.bsky.social

Reposted by

Julian Davis Mortenson

i mean i'm annoyed by it but if the deal is that the executive doesn't have to comply with your subpoenas unless it's an impeachment investigation, then a lot of these are going to be impeachment investigations

The House has approved an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, formalizing Republicans' already ongoing impeachment inquiry

Republicans Vote To Authorize Impeachment Inquiry Against Joe Bidenwww.huffpost.com The vote is a step toward an eventual impeachment, though some Republicans remain skeptical of the case against Biden.