NOMS NOMS JURISPRUDENCE papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... - ThreadSky

evanbernick.bsky.social • 36 days ago

NOMS NOMS JURISPRUDENCE

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4995907&dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_law%3Aculture%3Aejournal_abstractlink

Comments

villawlib.bsky.social•36 days ago

Next investigate soups.

nmignanelli.bsky.social•35 days ago

Schmittean jurisprudence:

elijahplovejoy.bsky.social•36 days ago

How are Salmon Chase and, even more, Felix Frankfurter not among the jurists mentioned? I mean...

evanbernick.bsky.social•36 days ago

You gotta leave some space in the literature for other scholars

elijahplovejoy.bsky.social•36 days ago

Okay, but Warren Burger??

It was right there.

evanbernick.bsky.social•36 days ago

It is by no means clear that a Burger is a sandwich. It is at best a penumbral case.

elijahplovejoy.bsky.social•36 days ago

Bill Douglas liked Cubans.
Tom Clark ordered clubs.
James Byrne favored Po' Boys.
For Holmes, only subs.

Lamar asked for hoagies,
E'en if with a drawl.
But Chief Justice Taft?
Well, he'd eat them all.

(I'll show myself out.)

randysutton.bsky.social•35 days ago

@mpavictoria.bsky.social

jerryedwards.bsky.social•35 days ago

This is great lol! @sawilliams.bsky.social, I stan.

david.raikow.online•36 days ago

Has anyone told @hodgman.bsky.social

sawilliams.bsky.social•36 days ago

If someone could I really don't think you would know what this would mean to me.

mseraphimsl.bsky.social•36 days ago

I refuse to believe the conflict statement. No interest in sandwiches indeed!

sawilliams.bsky.social•35 days ago

As part of a diet I AM trying to cut down on carbs…

mseraphimsl.bsky.social•36 days ago

Maybe this is of interest to you @swordsjew.bsky.social

evanbernick.bsky.social•36 days ago

Legal philosophers, never change

evanbernick.bsky.social•36 days ago

Writing about sandwiches while the normative universe burns, smh

evanbernick.bsky.social•36 days ago

(for the record, I wholeheartedly support this mode of being a law prof, it is valid)

sawilliams.bsky.social•36 days ago

I think you'll like or possibly vehemently despise what's coming up next!

evanbernick.bsky.social•36 days ago

I kid because I love!

yesterdayscatch.bsky.social•36 days ago

I'm already conjuring objections at the first sentence of the abstract. Something may be a sandwich for legal purposes and yet not a sandwich for ordinary purposes. "For legal purposes" is a funny sort of device b/c you can just add it to even a kind of slightly ridiculous statement.

yesterdayscatch.bsky.social•36 days ago

You add it and others can just nodd on.