Day: February 1, 2017

Washington Seeks Nationwide Injunction of Immigration Order, Relying on Argument It Opposed U.S. v. Texas

On Monday, the Washington Attorney General challenged the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order, seeking a temporary restraining order. Barely three weeks after the inauguration, and now progressive states are filing suit to seek nationwide injunctions against executive actions on immigration. This wasn’t always their position. The times, they are a- ‘.

Two years ago, in Texas v. United States, Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell urged the 5th Circuit to reverse Judge Hanen’s nationwide injunction, stating that it was overboard. Specifically, the injunction should not extend to states that welcomed DAPA.

The district court ignored these principles. It entered a broad, nationwide injunction, even though the only evidence of harm it cited related to driver’s license costs in Texas. Meanwhile, thirteen Amici States were before the court arguing that we would benefit from the directives, many other States never joined Plaintiffs’ lawsuit and have never alleged that the directives will harm them, and even the vast majority of Plaintiff States offered no evidence that the directives would harm them. By entering a nationwide injunction based entirely on evidence of purported harm to a single state, the district court abused its discretion. See, e.g., Roho, 902 F.2d at 361; Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009) (“‘[a]n overbroad injunction is an abuse of discretion’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 1991)).

In short, even if the district court’s flawed findings of harm to the Plaintiff States were accurate, those findings could not possibly justify injunctive relief in other States, especially where the amici States stand before this Court asserting that we welcome the immigration directives and expect to benefit from them.

In other words, even if DAPA is unlawful, the injunction should not be extended nationwide. In particular, it should not bind states that “expect to benefit” from the program.

The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, citing Article I’s and Congress’s demand for a “uniform” system of immigration laws, an injunction must be nationwide.

The government maintains that the nationwide scope of the injunction is an abuse of discretion, so it asks that the injunction be confined to Texas or the plaintiff states. But partial implementation of DAPA would undermine the constitutional imperative of “a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and Congress’s instruction that “the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.” A patchwork system would “detract[] from the ‘integrated scheme of regulation’ created by Congress.” Further, there is a substantial likelihood that a partial injunction would be ineffective because DAPA beneficiaries would be free to move between states.

So long as an alien could receive DAPA in Washington, nothing would stop him from crossing the (state) border and move to Texas, at which point he would have been entitled to apply to a driver’s license, and thus inflict costs. This analysis is exactly right.

Now, with Trump in office, everything is reversed. Washington seeks a nationwide injunction to halt Trump’s executive order in all states–even those states that want it to be enforced.Texas, I’m sure, “expect[s] to benefit” from the Executive Order. Too bad says Washington–immigration policy must be uniform. Fittingly, Washington cites Texas as the leading precedent.

While the State seeks a nationwide injunction, that relief is appropriate for two reasons: (1) Congress and the courts have emphasized the importance of uniformity in applying immigration policies nationwide; and (2) nationwide relief is necessary to ensure that State residents and those traveling to meet them are not stopped at other ports of entry around the country or interfered with by officials in Washington, DC, on their way to Washington State. See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 768-69 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming nationwide injunction to ensure uniformity and provide full relief).

Immigration policy must be uniform, so if the executive order is unlawful, a nationwide injunction is entirely appropriate.

I don’t pretend litigators have any duty for consistency. In fact, I’m glad the Washington SG (who has taken me out of context before) saw the light–sooner rather than later.

Update: On 2/3, the District Court issued a nationwide injunction, specifically citing the need for uniformity in the immigration laws.

Read More

Guest on 1A (WAMU Public Radio) to discuss appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch

Today I was a guest on 1A, a new public radio program syndicated nationally from WAMU in Washington, D.C. (It filled the slot formally occupied by the Diane Rehm Show). Host Joshua Johnson invited me, Ken Jost, and Elizabeth Wydra, to discuss all facets of the Gorsuch nomination. The conversation, nearly an hour long, was fun and engaging. You can listen here or here:

Read More

President Trump’s and Judge Gorsuch’s Remarks from the East Room

President Trump’s primetime announcement of Judge Gorsuch as the replacement for Justice Scalia had all the build-up and hype of a reality show special. But the event itself was quite routine. In this post, I’d like to walk through the remarks of both President Trump and Judge Gorsuch, and offer some observations.

First, Trump noted that his selection process was the “most transparent” ever:

This may be the most transparent judicial selection process in history. Months ago as a candidate, I publicly presented a list of brilliant and accomplished people to the American electorate and pledged to make my choice from among that list.

He’s right. As I note in a forthcoming piece in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, titled SCOTUS after Scalia, Trump has set a new precedent for releasing short lists in advance. This allows everyone to vet every candidate with adequate time, and there can be no surprises. During an interview on  last night, Leonard Leo revealed that it was Trump’s idea to create the list. I’m not sure if that had been reported before. But this was a wise move.

Second, Trump acknowledged that many people who voted for him, did so because of the Supreme Court:

Millions of voters said this was the single most important issue to them when they voted for me for president . . .  I have always felt that after the defense of our nation, the most important decision a president of the United States can make is the appointment of a Supreme Court justice.

This is a remarkable notion: that one of the most important things a President can do is to appoint a judge. Perhaps only national defense takes precedent. But this is a fact of our life.

Third, Trump stated the obvious: at 49 years old, Gorsuch can serve for potentially 40 years, or more.

Depending on their age, a justice can be active for 50 years and his or her decisions can last a century or more and can often be permanent.

I discuss the actuarial life-spans here. Justice Gorsuch may be with us until 2047!

Fourth, Trump gave a very kind greeting to Maureen Scalia, who was in attendance.

Also with us tonight is Maureen Scalia, a woman loved by her husband and deeply respected by all. I am so happy she’s with us. Where is Maureen? Please, stand up. Thank you, Maureen.

On the stump, the candidate recalled that Maureen had a “Trump” yard sign.

There is a deliberate effort to tie Scalia and Gorsuch, including this photo, released shortly after the nomination, which has been atop the Drudge Report all day.

Judge Gorsuch’s remarks were like his opinions: poignant, pithy, poetic, and powerful. He began:

Standing here in a house of history, and acutely aware of my own imperfections, I pledge that if I am confirmed I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws of this great country.

What prose!

First, Judge Gorsuch used the judicial oath to explain his role to the Constitution, and to all people–rich and poor.

I’ve watched them fearlessly tending to the rule of law, enforcing the promises of our Constitution and living out daily their judicial oaths to administer justice equally to rich and poor alike, following the law as they find it and without respect to their personal political beliefs. I think of them tonight.

The current statutory oath provides:

“Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” 28 U.S.C. § 453.

The oath, which has been recited by judges for other two centuries, appears in (of all places) Marbury v. Madison. As Chief Justice Marshall explained, it forms part of the basis of the judicial power to set aside unconstitutional statutes:

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government?

For more on the judicial oath, see Richard Re’s cool new paper. During his confirmation hearing, John Roberts used this oath to stun a flat-flooted Senator Dick Durbin. Re writes:

During the confirmation hearings for then-Judge John Roberts, Senator Richard Durbin asked about economic equality. “Would you at least concede,” Durbin asked, “that you would take into consideration that in our system of justice the race goes to the swift, and the swift are those with the resources, the money, the lawyers, the power in the system?”2 “Absolutely,” Roberts replied. After all, “the judicial oath talks about doing justice without regard to persons, to rich and to poor.”3 So it’s “critically important,” Roberts continued, “to appreciate that there are going to be interests who, for one reason or another, don’t have the same resources as people on the other side.”4

There’s a reason John Roberts earned the reputation he did as an advocate. I fully expect Judge Gorsuch to run similar rings around the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, a surprisingly-few who are actually lawyers. Their staffers can perhaps give them the first question, but for the follow-up they won’t lay a glove on the silver fox.

Second, he refers to our great Constitution as the “greatest charter of human liberty the world has ever known.”

Of course, the Supreme Court’s work is vital not just to a region of the country, but to the whole, vital to the protection of the people’s liberties under law and to the continuity of our Constitution, the greatest charter of human liberty the world has ever known.

Third, he payed homage to the seat he is filling, formerly occupied by Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson.

The towering judges that have served in this particular seat of the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.

Who held it in between those giants? Jackson’s law clerk, William Rehnquist, and before him John Marshall Harlan II. Little known fact, but in the dining room, the Justices sit not in their order of seniority, but in the seat assigned to their predecessor. Quirky tradition. On that note, Justice Kagan will soon be relieved of answering the door at conference, and cafeteria duty.

Fourth, Gorsuch paid tribute to the Judges he clerked for: Judge Sentelle, Justice White, and (perhaps most importantly) Justice Kennedy:

He was one of the smartest and most courageous men I’ve ever known. When Justice White retired, he gave me the chance to work for Justice Kennedy, as well. Justice Kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious, and like Justice White, he taught me so much. I am forever grateful. And if you’ve ever met Judge David Sentelle, you’ll know just how lucky I was to land a clerkship with him right out of school. Thank you. These judges brought me up in the law. Truly, I would not be here without them. Today is as much their day as it is mine.

Once confirmed, this will be the first time where a Justice and his former boss served together. (It almost happened when Judge Roberts was nominated to replace Justice O’Connor, but after the death of his former boss William Rehnquist, President Bush elevated JGR to the Chief seat). And as I noted in Politico, perhaps Judge Gorsuch can help nudge AMK to the right a bit to counteract the influence of EK.

Fifth, Judge Gorsuch made an important point about the difference between a good judge, and a bad jduge.

I respect, too, the fact that in our legal order it is for Congress and not the courts to write new laws. It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.

Recently, Justice Sotomayor made a similar point at Arizona State.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the confirmation process for high-court nominees is essentially useless because the public wants to know how a candidate would rule — something she told a crowd at Arizona State University that no good judge would predict.

“What you want is for us to tell you how as a judicial nominee we’re going to rule on the important issues you find vexing,” she told the audience at ASU Gammage on Monday night.

“Any self-respecting judge who comes in with an agenda that would permit that judge to tell you how they will vote is the kind of person you don’t want as a judge,” she said.

Indeed, a judge who only reaches results that he or she agrees with is a bad judge. At Gorsuch’s confirmation, and all future confirmation hearings, Senators should ask judges a critical question:

Please tell us about a (constitutional) case where you ruled in a way you disagree with as a matter of policy. That is, a case where you cast a vote as a judge one way, but if you were a legislator, or member of a constitutional convention, you would have voted the opposite direction. How did you come to that difficult conclusion?

In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Thomas made this exact point:

I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

 Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.

Justice Scalia would famously hold up his vote in Texas v. Johnson–overturning a conviction for flag burning–where he reached a result he a result he certainly disagreed with as a matter of policy. As retold in The New Yorker:

Scalia tends to lampoon his enemies. A “ ‘living-Constitution’ judge,” he explained, is a “happy fellow who comes home at night to his wife and says, ‘The Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean!’ “ By contrast, Scalia said, he was sometimes forced by the rigors of originalist methodology to make decisions that lead to consequences he finds repugnant. He noted that in 1989 he voted to strike down the conviction of a man who had burned the American flag, on the ground that the First Amendment protected such symbolic acts. “Scalia did not like to vote that way,” he said, slipping into the third person, as he often does during comic riffs. “He does not like sandal-wearing bearded weirdos who go around burning flags. He is a very conservative fellow.” Although originalists are not supposed to care about the outcome, an originalist’s wife, evidently, might sometimes consider this a crock. Scalia went on, “I came down to breakfast the next morning, and my wife—she’s a very conservative woman—she was scrambling eggs and humming ‘It’s a Grand Old Flag.’ That’s a true story. I don’t need that! A living-Constitution judge never has to suffer that way.”

All of the Justices, and Justices-to-be, should be able to answer this question.

Sixth, in a comment that did not escape my attention, he thanked his “faith.” Though he has ruled on religious liberty in the context of Hobby Lobby, there have not been any abortion cases that crossed his docket.

I am so thankful tonight for my family, my friends and my faith. These are the things that keep me grounded at life’s peaks and have sustained me in its valleys.

To Louise, my incredible wife and companion of 20 years, my cherished daughters who are watching on TV, and all my family and friends, I cannot thank you enough for your love and for your prayers. I could not attempt this without you.

Fittingly, after the nomination was made, Father Scalia led everyone in a prayer.

Despite all the drama, it was a flawlessly-executed event.

Update: Justice Ginsburg, in recent remarks at Stanford, explained an instance where she ruled in a way she disagreed with: the death penalty.

Update: Justice O’Connor offered a similar admission in her dissent in Gonzales v. Raich:

If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.

 

Read More

My Take in Politico on Judge Gorsuch: “The Kennedy Whisperer”

Politico Magazine asked me to provide a quick take on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination to replace Justice Scalia. My remarks aim to rebut a common misconception: that Justice Gorsuch is a 1-to-1 replacement of Justice Scalia. Not so. While Scalia was fairly abrasive, and alienated Justice Kennedy, Justice Gorsuch may have–in the words of Larry Tribe–“purchase on Tony Kennedy’s mind.”

The Kennedy whisperer
Josh Blackman is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston.

In 2009, Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe urged President Obama to nominate then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Justice Souter. At the time, Tribe carped that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have not had “much of a purchase on Tony Kennedy’s mind.” Kagan, unlike the eventual nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Tribe explained, would be able to prevent Kennedy, the longtime swing voter, “from drifting in a direction that is both formalistic and right-leaning of matters of equal protection and personal liberty.” President Obama did not listen to Tribe the first time, but he did select Kagan to the High Court a year later in 2010. Kagan’s addition largely proved Tribe’s prediction correct; since her appointment, the swing justice has “consistently moved in the liberal direction,” in the words of one legal scholar.

President Trump’s decision to nominate Judge Neil Gorsuch was inspired. As a committed originalist, sound jurist and brilliant writer, Gorsuch will serve as a worthy intellectual heir to Justice Scalia. But more importantly, he has a cachet that, alas, the brash New Yorker lacked. As a former law clerk to Justice Kennedy, Gorsuch has the unique opportunity to try to persuade his former boss, and maybe—just maybe—nudge him to the right. While Justice Scalia regrettably alienated the moderate members of the court, the collegial Coloradan has the opportunity to cast textualism and originalism in a softer, friendlier light. We are a long way from restoring the lost Constitution. However, appointing Neil Gorsuch—whose purchase on Tony Kennedy was forged two decades ago—brings us one, and maybe two, votes closer.

The piece also quotes twelve other legal scholars including Eugene Volokh, Erwin Chemerinsky, Ilya Somin, and many others.

Read More

House to vote tomorrow on Congressional Review Act disapproval of Social Security Gun Grab

In July, I co-authored a regulatory comment on behalf of the Cato Institute, opposing a proposed rule that would designate Social Security recipients who receive a “representative payee” as “mentally defective,” and thus disqualified to purchase firearms. This regime, which failed to offer even the most basic elements of due process, deprived people with disabilities of their civil rights. Much to my disappointment, the Obama administration published the final rule on December 19–just enough time for it to go into effect on the eve of the inauguration. Perhaps the outgoing government thought they pulled a fast one–not so fast.

Almost immediately after the rule was finalized, I engaged in talks with members of the Disability Rights community, as well as Senate and House staffers, to utilize the Congressional Review Act to nullify this midnight regulation. (I discuss the operation of the CRA here). In particular, I worked closely with Dara Baldwin of the National Disability Rights Network, and Samantha Crane of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, to put together an editorial in The Hill to make the case for the CRA. Writing this piece was a valuable experience, because we had to find a unifying ground that would appeal to all parties, without reference to party. I think the essay accomplishes that goal.

Now, our work has helped this resolution became a reality. After reports in WSJ, AP, and Reuters, I can now report that the disapproval resolution, introduced by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), is ready to proceed. After an hour of debate tomorrow (all that is allowed under the rules), there will be a vote. From everything I’ve gathered, it will succeed. Then, the resolution goes to the Senate, where I understand Sen. Chuck Grassely (R-IA) will be taking the lead.

The resolution is very straightforward:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 91702 (December 19, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

And by the way, once Congress disapproves of this resolution, the agency is barred from introducing substantially similar regulations in the future. It salts the earth.

Rep. Johnson’s press release specifically cites our contributions to the project:

And as mental health advocates and legal scholars wrote in The Hill after the rule was finalized:

“Under recently finalized rules, millions of Americans with a disability, who have shown no propensity to harm others, could be barred from acquiring firearms. This regulation stigmatizes Social Security recipients with a disability who request help to manage their financial affairs. Even worse, it deprives them of their civil rights without due process of law.”

There are also many other letters in support of the resolution.

Stay tuned for the vote.

Read More

LexPredict Fantasy SCOTUS Predicted Judge Gorsuch on November 20, 2016

It’s time for a bit of a victory lap. Since the end of November, Judge Neil Gorsuch has been firmly perched atop the FantasySCOTUS prediction market. We called it before anyone else. At the LexPredict blog, my colleague Mike Bommarito wrote a post explaining our methodology. I reproduce it here.

On November 14th, 2016, just days after the election, the New York Times published an article covering likely Supreme Court nominees from the Trump administration.  A day later, CNN had published their own piece on the topic.  And within the next few weeks, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, and many others had all followed up with their own predictions and profiles.  By early December, PredictIt, the real-money prediction market, got into the fray, listing contracts for 25 candidate Justices to their market.

Collectively, pundits and market participants spent thousands of hours researching, interviewing, and writing on the topic.  Old contacts were dug up, hunches were whispered over Beltway lunches, and the tea leaves of Trump’s tweets were read.  But despite this small mountain of effort, none of these early prognostications were right.  In fact, Gorsuch was barely mentioned in this early coverage, and even then, often as an “also-ran.”

Well, almost.  FantasyJustice predicted the Gorsuch appointment on November 20th.  But for a few brief hours on November 23rd, Gorsuch never fell from the lead, and his margin continued to grow right up to the announcement at 8PM last night.  Our not-for-money crowd prediction results are shown in the figure below, beginning on November 14th and running up through the night of January 31st.

FantasyJustice predicted Gorsuch appointment

So how did $50 in Amazon Web Services hosting expenses and a half-day diversion for one of our developers beat out hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct investment and opportunity cost by sophisticated media organizations?  More importantly, what can we learn from this example?

THREE WAYS TO PREDICT

We start from a simple idea – there are three ways we predict things: experts, crowds, and algorithms.  Experts are best exemplified by pundits, doctors, and lawyers, and for much of recent human history, we have delegated decision-making to solitary specialists like these – the so-called “cult of the expert.”  Experts typically rely on tacit knowledge and implicit models, which is “technical” for “experienced gut instinct.”

(If you’ve made it this far, do yourself a favor and purchase a copy of Professor Tetlock’s Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction.  Professor Tetlock’s career has been dedicated to exploring human judgement, good or otherwise, and his book is an excellent tour through modern research.)

Crowds, on the other hand, are defined by their multiplicity.  While books like James Surowiecki’s have popularized the idea of the “wisdom of the crowd” despite the lack of wisdom of its constituents, crowds can take many forms.  For example, a panel of experts can form a crowd, just as the market of PredictIt users may form another.

Lastly, algorithms are best demonstrated by the progress of “Artificial Intelligence” or “Machine Learning” technologies.  Can I safely turn right at this intersection in four seconds?  Is this borrower likely to repay their mortgage over the next 30 years?  Algorithms are systematic approaches based on explicit, data-driven models.  While humans can technically execute algorithms without the aid of computers, our general distaste for arithmetic has left this task to the machines.

THE STORY

While recovering from a brunch in Chicago on Saturday, November 5th, Josh, Tyler, and I applied this framework to the upcoming nomination process.  Experts – well, the papers are already full of their guesses.  Algorithms – not much data to use here, so we can’t train a model.  And so, through process of elimination, crowds it was.

In reality, we spend much of our time helping clients deal with issues just like these.  In addition to running FantasyJustice, we’ve run FantasySCOTUS, a Supreme Court prediction tournament, for the last 6 years; we also offer a legal technology product called LexSemble used by corporate legal departments and law firms.  Will the FTC approve our merger?  Should we settle this commercial litigation?  How much in damages will the EPA seek?  And, most  importantly, which experts, attorneys, and law firms have been right about questions like these in the past?

Armed with this experience, the rest was easy.  We had a site up and running within days. Referrals through Twitter and our FantasySCOTUS got the first few hundred predictions.  Josh, iPad in hand, walked the floor of the Federalist Society Conference, collecting votes from tens of experts (as some of the potential nominees watched!).  We even had Russian and Brazilian botnets weigh in with their opinions.

In the end, our process got the right answer, and did so quickly.  Our crowd of interested parties, many of whom would be deemed experts, provided nearly 4000 opinions without any offer of reward or compensation.  The results of the poll were public and transparent from day one, and we’ll be published detailed vote logs (including IP) in the near future.

The moral of the story?  The golden era of “the cult of the expert” is over.  Armed with science on the judgement of groups of people and technology to help, we can do much better than relying on one person’s gut instinct.

I am very proud of my team, and the wisdom of the crowds, for getting this prediction exactly right.

Read More

Audio: An Evening with Tony Mauro in Houston

On Wednesday, January 31, Tony Mauro of the National Law Journal visited Houston to discuss his legendary career covering the Court. I was fortunate enough to be invited as a panelist alongside Aaron Street (Baker Botts) and Robby Voyles (Halliburton GC). The event was sponsored by the Texas Lawbook. During the event, Tony regaled us with stories about the Justices, the best arguments he heard, the worst arguments he heard, and some other fun bits. My favorite story: the time Justice Scalia wrote that Tony’s writing was “mauronic.” As an added benefit, immediately after the discussion, we all watched President Trump’s announcement during the reception. It was a surreal night. I was glad to have Tony there! You can listen to our discussion here.

Read More

Books

Final-Unraveled-Cover

YouTube

Subscribe to YouTube Channel

[powr-youtube-gallery id=158059bf_1477783431]

Upcoming Events

Loading...

@JoshMBlackman

Archives

February 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728