Jamie Fox

@whatlawfoxsays

Law professor. A skeptic, not a cynic.

602 Siguiendo836 Seguidores2589 Publicaciones

YouTube Bluesky

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y whatlawfoxsays.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· 12d

Tape holding my damn plane together. What year is this, @deltaairline.bsky.social 1910?

Tape holding interior wall in olace in airplane

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· 17d

Road signs, Orcas Island, Washington.

Two signs. First reads “Olga Cemetery rd.” Second reads “Dean End"

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· 21d

And here is Paul Klee’s Angel Novus that WB was meditating on (did not realize he owned it). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pa...

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· 25d

Police right on scene justifying White aggression and gun violence because Black and Brown kids out making money. Basically, the presence of Black and Brown teen males in White public space is labelled a threat by Sheriff’s department. Triggers self-defense statute. Just like good ol’ Jim Crow days.

Hoffman thought they "may have been attempting to burglarize residences," the report states. The deputies told him to call the police next time, according to the report, and Hoffman said he would.
Hoffman's actions appeared "justified" because of the young men's "suspicious" activity, Deputy Taylor Kimberly wrote in the report. The report also states Lenhart "did not wish to get Charles (Hoffman) in trouble."

The officers at the scene issued a warning to Speaker, Lenhart and Salinas for soliciting without a permit. They photographed "the subjects," the van and the 2 Clean Whips flyer, the report says. Kimberly, the deputy, recommended the young men wear branded company clothing while canvassing.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· 25d

Sure, dude pulls out a loaded gun everytime he sees teens in the neighborhood, regardless of race. Yep, he probably does not even see race at all.

Throughout the video, Lenhart and his friends apologized to Hoffman and made other attempts to placate him. Hoffman kept the gun in his right hand, pointed to the ground, for most of the video.
Then, Hoffman, who is white, brought up race. Salinas is Hispanic, and Lenhart and Speaker are Black.
"And believe me, it's got nothing to do with color," Hoffman said.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jul 10

The quest for fair elections and a reclaimed republic stands upon a knife’s edge

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jul 9

...they actually say: There were multiple allegations; a retired judge issued a report substantiating them; there was a friggin text from Latvala supporting at least one major claim. This should have been part of the lead. And it should have said "evidence" not "allegations".

Multiple women made anonymous claims that Latvala had sexually harassed them. A Senate report later included their testimony that said Latvala had groped them and attempted physical contact in exchange for him awarding legislative favors. A woman came forward weeks later to say she ended her lobbying career so that she would never owe Latvala anything.

Latvala resigned after a retired judge issued a 33-page report documenting the claims of the lobbyist, with whom Latvala had a 20-year relationship. It included text messages that Latvala had sent outlining his support for her agenda if she would engage in sexual contact with him.

Her “testimony raises issues of public corruption and ethics violations not within the scope of this report,” the judge wrote.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jul 9

Here is the intro. The "never charged with a crime" makes it seem like the "allegations" were unsupported. But at the end of the piece...

Jack Latvala, a longtime Florida senator representing north Pinellas County and powerful Tampa Bay leader who remade the state’s Republican Party, died Wednesday.

He was 74.

During his time in Tallahassee, Latvala built a reputation as the most skilled and influential lawmaker in the statehouse, a position enhanced by a consulting business that recruited dozens of candidates, many who still hold office today. But allegations that he sexually harassed women put an abrupt end to his four decades in politics and a bid for governor.

Latvala was never charged with a crime.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jul 9

And what happens when a dem does propose solutions? Ed board? Yeah, all those ideas are SoCiALisT. 8/

From NYT ed board refusal to endorse in Dem mayor primary: The polls indicate that two candidates have emerged as the front-runners: Andrew Cuomo, a former governor and federal housing secretary, and Zohran Mamdani, a state legislator who represents a Queens district. Mr. Mamdani, a charismatic 33-year-old, is running a joyful campaign full of viral videos in which he talks with voters. He offers the kind of fresh political style for which many people are hungry during the angry era of President Trump.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mamdani is running on an agenda uniquely unsuited to the city’s challenges. He is a democratic socialist who too often ignores the unavoidable trade-offs of governance. He favors rent freezes that could restrict housing supply and make it harder for younger New Yorkers and new arrivals to afford housing. He wants the government to operate grocery stores, as if customer service and retail sales were strengths of the public sector. He minimizes the importance of policing.

Most worrisome, he shows little concern about the disorder of the past decade, even though its costs have fallen hardest on the city’s working-class and poor residents. Mr. Mamdani, who has called Mr. de Blasio the best New York mayor of his lifetime, offers an agenda that remains alluring among elite progressives but has proved damaging to city life.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jul 9

NYT‘s old standby, “dems in disarray”

NYT editorial board op-ed headline “The Democrats Can’t Go On Like This” with photo of a hand holding a Platner poster

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jul 8

Lagoa basically argues with almost no evidence that academic freedom should not exist because handwavium Originlism. The majority has no patience at all with this. Here is majority’s response: 2/

A few words about the dissent. Our decision today does not
authorize “viewpoint discrimination under exceptions created,
interpreted, and enforced by the judiciary.” Dissenting Op. at 32.
To the contrary, it simply reserves space for the same kinds of
curricular and disciplinary decisions that universities have always
made. Nor do we make any judgment about the value of the ideas
Florida seeks to ban—it is not our place to do so. “As in every case,
our single duty is to determine the issues presented in accord with
the Constitution and the law.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S.
443, 445 (1971); see also Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477, 506–07
(2023). For its part, the dissent does not so much as attempt to
reconcile its view with the Supreme Court’s repeated invocations
of academic freedom. Perhaps it finds them inconvenient, or even
incorrect (though it offers no analysis of why that would be so).
But the only way to uphold this law is to disregard those
precedents, and as lower court judges we do not have that option.
The dissent also attempts to clothe itself in originalism
without offering any originalist inquiry. For one, it makes a show
of the lack of pre-twentieth-century discussion of “academic

freedom,” but that is easy enough to explain—if one considers the
matter. See Dissenting Op. at 9–10. To start, the First Amendment
was not incorporated against the States until 1868, and the federal
government was not in the business of chartering universities, so
there was no reason to consider its specific impact on state
universities until much later.
Jurisprudential factors were at play, too. The First
Amendment had “no general bite in 1900 because of the American
judiciary’s extremely cramped view of the amendment’s scope.”
William W. Van Alstyne, Academic Freedom and the First Amendment
in the Supreme Court of the United States: An Unhurried Historical
Review, 53 Law. & Contemp. Probs. 79, 82 (1990). That was not,
the reader will note, an originalist era. On top of that, the Supreme
Court’s view of public employment at the time left no room at all
for freedom of speech—a government employer had total control
over an employee’s speech, both in and out of the workplace. Id.
at 83–84. Then-Judge Holmes offered the most memorable (if
troubling) description of this view: “The petitioner may have a
constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional
right to be a policeman. . . . The servant cannot complain, as he
takes the employment on the terms which are offered him.”
McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 29 N.E. 517, 517–18 (Mass. 1892).
Though the dissent endorses this long-retired view of public
employee speech, its place in the law is thankfully gone.

Even considering all this, it is clear that the concept of
academic freedom, if not the term, was well recognized early in

our Nation’s history. One of the very scholars the dissent cites
explains that “[p]ractical autonomy from government control has
characterized American colleges and universities . . . at least since
disestablishment of the state churches at the beginning of the
nineteenth century.” J. Peter Byrne, Academic Freedom: A “Special
Concern of the First Amendment,
” 99 Yale L.J. 251, 321 (1989). Indeed,
early sources reflect a respect for keeping politics out of teaching
and scholarship. When the New Hampshire legislature tried to
take over Dartmouth College, Daniel Webster persuaded the
Supreme Court to side with the College. In what turned out to be
the most famous oral argument in this Nation’s history, Webster
stressed that it would be “a dangerous, a most dangerous,
experiment, to hold these institutions subject to the rise and fall of
popular parties, and the fluctuations of political opinions.” See Trs.
of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518, 599 (1819). So too for
freedom of inquiry in the university setting. Around the same
time, when planning for the University of Virginia, Thomas
Jefferson wrote, “this institution will be based on the illimitable
freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow
truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as
reason is left free to combat it.” Letter from Thomas Jefferson to
William Roscoe (Dec. 27, 1820), in 16 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson:

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jul 6

And you know what they could have done about it? Filed an amicus supporting Haitians and not have their guy sign one for Trump.

Cover page of state AGs amicus supporting admin in Mullin v Doe

Participants page of brief with Florida AG Uthmeier

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jul 5

Eff this guy. If it were up to him Balogun would not *be* a citizen eligible to play for the US.

Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!” U.S. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social after the news had broken.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 30

🔥

Last two paragraphs of Justice Jackson's concurrence in Barbara:

Ultimately, then, it is the Government and JUSTICE
THOMAS who have “repurposed the Fourteenth Amend-
ment.” Post, at 91. By ignoring that our Constitution
stands firmly against caste and subjugation—on all axes
and in all manners—they deny the clear, universalist vision
shared and proclaimed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Framers: to “rebuild a shattered empire . . . to plant deep
and solid the corner-stone of eternal justice, and to erect
thereon a superstructure of perfect equality of every human
being before the law.”60
Of course, the ultimate irony is that for all the talk about
the detestable Dred Scott decision, the Government and the
principal dissent propose a return to its core tenet. Their
bottom line is that, for certain people, being born on Amer-
ican soil will not suffice to confer citizenship. It is that odi-
ous conclusion that the Citizenship Clause plainly rejects,
as the Court explains. Ante, at 26. I add only that the Four-
teenth Amendment’s universalist aims should forever be
the death knell for this kind of claim—one that seeks to
make bloodline the marker of birthright. The America that
was reborn from the rubble of the Civil War simply does not
countenance that inequitable result. Thankfully, a major-
ity of the Court remembered this today, and has dutifully
preserved the most basic animating principle of our Na-
tion’s founding—that all human beings are created equal—
once more.
——————
60 Address by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, Bedford, Pa., Sept. 4,
1866, in Cincinnati Commercial, Sept. 11, 1866, p. 2, col. 1.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 30

For needing The Far Side reference

Far Side cartoon with dog making it across busy street and other dogs greeting saying "All Right! Rusty's in the club!"

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 30

Rusty's in the club

Excerpt from Justice Jackson's concurrence in Barbara citing an article I wrote.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 30

Correction: It pretty favorably cites Barrett's op but there don't seem to be enough votes for it yet?

That said, even if the laws made a transgender or gender-
identity classification, this Court “has not previously held”
that intermediate or other heightened scrutiny applies to a
transgender or gender-identity classification. Ibid. Several
Members of this Court, moreover, have concluded that
classifications based on transgender status or gender
identity should receive only deferential rational basis
review and not intermediate or other heightened scrutiny.
See id., at 550–553 (BARRETT, J., joined by THOMAS, J.,
concurring); id., at 566 (ALITO, J., concurring in part and
concurring in judgment).
In these cases, we need not definitively resolve whether
rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny applies to
transgender classifications. In either event, the
classification here readily satisfies rational basis review or
intermediate scrutiny for the reasons already explained at
some length above. The States’ interests in ensuring safety
and competitive fairness amply justify the States in
maintaining women’s and girls’ sports for biological
females. Under the Equal Protection Clause, therefore,
schools may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’
sports based on biological sex.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 29

Marshall’s response. This is classic Marshall: “The Court reasons backwards to conclude that, because appellants have not proved racial discrimination, a less strict standard of review is necessarily tolerated.”

Moreover, because I find that each one of the State's reasons for treating AFDC differently from the other programs dissolves under close scrutiny, as is demonstrated infra, I am not at all certain who should bear the burden of proof on the question of racial discrimination. Nor am I sure that the "traditional" standard of review would govern the case as the Court holds. In Dandridge v. Williams, supra, on which the Court relies for the proposition that strict scrutiny of the State's action is not required, the Court never faced a question of possible racial discrimination. Percentages themselves are certainly not conclusive, but, at some point, a showing that
Page 406 U. S. 576
state action has a devastating impact on the lives of minority racial groups must be relevant.
The Court reasons backwards to conclude that, because appellants have not proved racial discrimination, a less strict standard of review is necessarily tolerated. In my view, the first question that must be asked is what is the standard of review, and the second question is whether racial discrimination has been proved under the standard. It seems almost too plain for argument that the standard of review determines, in large measure, whether or not something has been proved. Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 403 U. S. 149 (1971); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, (1960).

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 28

Also a secretary desk c. 1930, grandmother-in-law’s originally. Roughly like this

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 26

Wilson's Committee of Detail version on left, Morris' final from the Committee of Style on the right. Wilson's *retains* the state-centric language, while Morris' is much more nationalist. (Wilson, helping the Committee of Style, must have approved the changes by his fellow Pennsylvanian.)

We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 25

All those countries with brown people are really diverse racially. And what do respondents even mean by "white"? Anyhoo, we don't know if the admin is racist until they have a case favoring "white" people.

From Mullins: Respondents argue that the Secretary made a
“preordained decision” to end TPS for all countries, Brief for
Respondents in No. 25–1083, p. 49, and they stress that she
terminated the TPS designations for every country that
came up for review, 13 in all. Id., at 9–10; Brief for Re-
spondents in No. 25–1084, p. 10. Included are nations in

East Asia (Nepal and Burma), Central Asia (Afghanistan),
the Middle East (Syria and Yemen), Africa (Somalia, Ethi-
opia, South Sudan, and Cameroon), Central America (Nic-
aragua and Honduras), South America (Venezuela), and
the Caribbean (Haiti).
Most would regard this as a racially diverse group of
countries, but Miot respondents see them all as “non-white”
nations. Ibid. They claim that TPS has not been termi-
nated for any predominantly white nation, and they there-
fore infer that the reason for the termination of the TPS
designation for Haiti was having a predominantly non-
white population.
Respondents’ definition of a predominantly non-white na-
tion is broad, apparently encompassing major European
countries. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 106–108. It may be that only
the termination of a TPS designation for a Nordic or Ger-
manic country would be sufficient in their judgment to show
that the Secretary’s unbroken record of TPS terminations
was race-neutral. However, no such test case has come up
during the present administration.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 20

Trump 2: where every day is St. Patrick’s Day

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 12

Independence Day

White House with massive UFC temporary arena cover in foreground

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 9

Every game, same result. Spurs jump out, then go flat while Knicks rally.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 8

The heck?

Screenshot of news story and map about 6.1 earthquake off Cuba coast felt in Florida

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 8

The elections that are rigged are his. (Yes, I realize not rigged in a fraud sense. But the noncompetitive races issue is an actual huge problem for democratic governance, unlike the mythical and disingenuous fraud claims he traffics.)

Shows 2022 vote in Johnson's district where he ran unopposed.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 8

Which unsurprisingly comes at a school that, as Oliver also notes, has some seriously gross sexual harassment/misconduct behavior among its recently hired administrators. end/

[From Sarasota Magazine summary of Oliver's show:] He also highlighted a series of controversial hires, including vice provost David Rancourt, a former lobbyist with no prior experience in higher education. Oliver claimed that “the most noteworthy thing” Rancourt had done since his appointment was participate in a stand-up comedy night in which he described an incident from childhood in which he exposed his genitalia to a child the same age, referring to her as a “little b—-.” Ironically, Oliver also pointed to former communications director Fred Piccolo to make his point, whose tenure ended after multiple charges of indecent exposure became public.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 8

The Times story expresses some concern that Oliver did not talk about the upcoming merging with USF-Sarasota. But missing from the Times report was any effort to test the credibility of Corcoran's claims, transcribed here as if they were credible. 3/

Corcoran also said New College has experienced record enrollment growth, rising academic achievement and significant philanthropic investment. The university has also recruited excellent faculty and strengthened campus culture, he said.

Missing from Oliver’s segment was any mention that the Florida Legislature struck a deal on transferring the University of South Florida’s Sarasota-Manatee campus to New College.

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 6

Screenshot from Florida Policy Institute noting legislature has now preserved school funding

Jamie Fox@whatlawfoxsays· Jun 6

Osprey calling from its nest on my walk today.