steveleben.bsky.social
Law professor at UMKC Law School in Kansas City, writing about procedural justice. Former Kansas state trial and appellate judge.
20 posts
61 followers
56 following
Regular Contributor
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
At least it is a lawyer. Procrastination is our special thing.
comment in response to
post
Thank you, Anne. One-word evaluations of legal arguments like this are greatly appreciated.
comment in response to
post
I prefer the Raphael Lempkin story.
comment in response to
post
Remember the multi-day story about the US Office of Special Counsel saying Biden’s press secretary violated the Hatch Act by calling people “MAGA Republicans”?
Trump is purging the head of that Office so he can sell Teslas on the White House lawn while Elon awards himself government contracts
comment in response to
post
It is not the news media’s job to referee a two-team sport called politics, but even if it were, it would require reckoning with why this corruption gets softer treatment than Hillary’s emails, Biden’s age, etc
comment in response to
post
And “to whom?”
comment in response to
post
I’m hoping the two teams meet either in the Big 10 or NCAA tournament.
I have no stake in Michigan athletic rivalries, though I have friends at Michigan Law and generally root for them. I don’t think many neutral observers are on the Michigan side of this one.
comment in response to
post
Was there a section of the Constitution written in all caps? If so, it controls. 😎
comment in response to
post
I still don’t know how you get so much done!
comment in response to
post
Thanks for the clarification, Sean. Count me in the I-don’t-know-for-sure group. And shouldn’t we be able to be sure?
The other reason I dislike unexplained orders is that sometimes a judge changes their mind when writing an opinion. I have. That’s hard to do if you announce the result first.
comment in response to
post
It’s also significant here that even seasoned appellate lawyers can’t tell whether it’s a 2-1 decision or a unanimous panel.
comment in response to
post
There can be times to do it, but generally issuing an order and saying an opinion will follow “in due course” is not a good practice.
Judging is the exercise of reasoned judgment. Without reasons, it’s just an action. In a time of decreasing public trusts, reasons are needed.
comment in response to
post
Will the clip perhaps make it to Strict Scrutiny? 🤷🏻♂️
🎱: “Without a doubt.”
comment in response to
post
Would like to hear your thought on the apparent decision to hold an order that was ready until after the State of the Union.
I’ve always thought, as a judge, that decisions should be issued when ready, even if that’s awkward for some political reason.
comment in response to
post
One could reasonably argue in an op-ed that reasonable regulation gives the public sufficient confidence to make the mostly free market work.
Is the WaPo opinion section now so absolutist that it’s to the right of, say, the Cato Institute? Hard to say. But that’s not where WaPo readers are.
comment in response to
post
I thought things might be different over here!
(They are, but not about the substance of your messages.)
Always good to see you in any forum or meeting!
comment in response to
post
Judge Dillard, I have just now stuck my head up over here. Do I understand that you are now a source of left-leaning legal takes? 😉