Sorry folks, in the email version that went out there were two copies of the reply brief but zero copies of the opening brief - I'm not sure what caused this, as it looked correct when I clicked "send." I think it might be a Substack error rather than an Adam error. Anyway, it's correct in the web version of the post.
I'm pretty sure that Justice Scalia's "Mahatma Gandhi" reference in Clinton alludes to Cole Porter's song, "You're the Top."
You're the top,
You're Mahatma Gandhi.
You're the top,
You're Napoleon Brandy.
You're the purple light of a summer night in Spain.
You're the National Gallery,
You're Garbo's salary,
You're Cellophane!
Cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 861 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (describing "shocks-the-conscience" as "the Napoleon Brandy, the Mahatma Gandhi, the Cellophane of subjectivity").
That was a GREAT post. Thanks for the Rules of Constitutional Litigation. I was delighted to see a quiet refutation of the White Horse Doctrine: even if both horses are white, one will have a droopier left eye than the other. I'm actually hoping Biden-appointed lower courts will take "distinguishing the Extremes" as its motto, cross stitched on the inside of their robes. One way to survive the next four years is for the courts to take up more time than trump has left before the issue gets to the Great OK.
Adam, can you expand your tutorial? Or, maybe direct us to your Mahatma Gandhi? How specific are your instructions to Claude? That initial brief follows all the rules and stylistic conventions: margins, type face, word count, section headings, citations, quotations. It even properly bracketed the first letter of a quote. Or, was I hallucinating? The transcript too followed specific conventions. The opinion, however, looked like standard Claude output. Look, this question is rhetorical because, like you, I never expect famous, intelligent, busy people to stop and answer (Trust the Ichthyologists). Still, it's worth asking. It's particularly worth asking Claude (who [almost] always has time). So, I'll be doing that. BTW, per your inspiration, and in a recent petiton to the 11th Circuit, I did a very Un-Unikowsky, and Un-Claude, thing (though I did qualify myself per Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 102 F.4th 1208, 1221 (11th Cir. 2024) (Newsom, concurring)). After walking through the steps I took to compare the panel decision to an alternate provided by Claude, I told the Court I would have been better off with a LLM as judge (In AI We Trust). The original panel said the property interest put at issue by the complaint was an "aviary." Where they came up with that is a mystery. (AI hallucination?) Claude, however, correctly identified the property interest as "birds." So, in a very Un-Unikowsky, Un-Claude, (un-professional?), manner I surrenderred to the impulse for cathartic gratification and I told the Court, "Claude beat the feathers off the panel." And, surrendering again to that impulse, I join all those here who say, "Adam, you're The Cellophane!"
... but there is tension between the Appropriations and Take Care Clauses. The Appropriations Clause is clear that the President may not spend money unless Congress ha appropriated it. Yet it is silent on whether the President can decide not to spend money that has been appropriated. Failure to do so -- impoundment-- may, however, be viewed as violating the duty to "faithfully execute" the law, and inconsistent with the precedents you cite (especially the bar on the line-item veto). There may well be more than three votes for the Executive power to impound given the Constitution's apparent silence on that question.
Thanks for the Rules of Constitutional Litigation, going to have to remember those:)
Unrelated note, any reason you haven't written about Skrmetti? It is because you want to keep the topic at arm's length, given your day job, or just haven't cared to?
Sorry folks, in the email version that went out there were two copies of the reply brief but zero copies of the opening brief - I'm not sure what caused this, as it looked correct when I clicked "send." I think it might be a Substack error rather than an Adam error. Anyway, it's correct in the web version of the post.
I'm pretty sure that Justice Scalia's "Mahatma Gandhi" reference in Clinton alludes to Cole Porter's song, "You're the Top."
You're the top,
You're Mahatma Gandhi.
You're the top,
You're Napoleon Brandy.
You're the purple light of a summer night in Spain.
You're the National Gallery,
You're Garbo's salary,
You're Cellophane!
Cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 861 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (describing "shocks-the-conscience" as "the Napoleon Brandy, the Mahatma Gandhi, the Cellophane of subjectivity").
This is superb work.
This was nicely written and the hypothetical scenario in which it would occur was hilarious.
That was a GREAT post. Thanks for the Rules of Constitutional Litigation. I was delighted to see a quiet refutation of the White Horse Doctrine: even if both horses are white, one will have a droopier left eye than the other. I'm actually hoping Biden-appointed lower courts will take "distinguishing the Extremes" as its motto, cross stitched on the inside of their robes. One way to survive the next four years is for the courts to take up more time than trump has left before the issue gets to the Great OK.
Man, this post didn't age well.
Adam, can you expand your tutorial? Or, maybe direct us to your Mahatma Gandhi? How specific are your instructions to Claude? That initial brief follows all the rules and stylistic conventions: margins, type face, word count, section headings, citations, quotations. It even properly bracketed the first letter of a quote. Or, was I hallucinating? The transcript too followed specific conventions. The opinion, however, looked like standard Claude output. Look, this question is rhetorical because, like you, I never expect famous, intelligent, busy people to stop and answer (Trust the Ichthyologists). Still, it's worth asking. It's particularly worth asking Claude (who [almost] always has time). So, I'll be doing that. BTW, per your inspiration, and in a recent petiton to the 11th Circuit, I did a very Un-Unikowsky, and Un-Claude, thing (though I did qualify myself per Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 102 F.4th 1208, 1221 (11th Cir. 2024) (Newsom, concurring)). After walking through the steps I took to compare the panel decision to an alternate provided by Claude, I told the Court I would have been better off with a LLM as judge (In AI We Trust). The original panel said the property interest put at issue by the complaint was an "aviary." Where they came up with that is a mystery. (AI hallucination?) Claude, however, correctly identified the property interest as "birds." So, in a very Un-Unikowsky, Un-Claude, (un-professional?), manner I surrenderred to the impulse for cathartic gratification and I told the Court, "Claude beat the feathers off the panel." And, surrendering again to that impulse, I join all those here who say, "Adam, you're The Cellophane!"
This is an excellent experiment and analysis, but the specter of Trump v United States nevertheless looms over it.
... but there is tension between the Appropriations and Take Care Clauses. The Appropriations Clause is clear that the President may not spend money unless Congress ha appropriated it. Yet it is silent on whether the President can decide not to spend money that has been appropriated. Failure to do so -- impoundment-- may, however, be viewed as violating the duty to "faithfully execute" the law, and inconsistent with the precedents you cite (especially the bar on the line-item veto). There may well be more than three votes for the Executive power to impound given the Constitution's apparent silence on that question.
It’s possible, see the First Law, but I think AI is well calibrated in this particular case.
I don't disagree with your, or AI's, conclusion
I am sharing this post widely.
Thanks for the Rules of Constitutional Litigation, going to have to remember those:)
Unrelated note, any reason you haven't written about Skrmetti? It is because you want to keep the topic at arm's length, given your day job, or just haven't cared to?
I’m representing clients in a related case, so I’m staying away from the topic on the blog.