Adam S. Rust
Lawyer, writes on law things, writings have appeared in Liberal Currents and Balls & Strikes, based in the SF Bay Area.
- I remember reading Trump v. US at a bar when it dropped and thinking "Is this what it felt like to read Dred Scott in 1857?"
- This is a good thing for con law profs (and imho property law profs) to do. It is a useful exercise for law students to wrestle with the law of slavery to instill an appropriate skepticism about the placid assumption that justice and rule of law are coterminous concepts.
- Reposted by Adam S. Rust[Not loaded yet]
- Reading Morton J. Horowitz's "The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860" and chuckled at this (correct) observation that the term "reasonable" in the common law is usually a signal to "insert judge's personal policy preferences here".
- Reposted by Adam S. Rust[Not loaded yet]
- It really is hard to emphasize how different the Founding generations relationship was with the law. Stuff we consider the Good Things now (unanimous appellate judicial opinions) were considered Bad Things then (sneaky attempts to create false unanimity on an issue of law where there wasn't one).
- 19th century racists were very clear on the difference, actually.
- Great thread on Ilan Wurman's latest Originalist foray into constitutional naturalization law. Really amazing how I can only slightly alter a passage I wrote on Wurman in 2019 and it still applies in 2026.
- Given who I think is being subskeeted here I do not think this is THAT amazing. Kinda predictable actually.
