Things to Read This Week (12/9)
The Radical Roots of the Representative Jury, by Thomas Frampton (“This Article offers an intellectual and social history of how the ‘elite jury’ lost its hegemonic appeal, with particular emphasis on the overlooked radicals—anarchists, socialists, Communists, trade unionists, and Popular Front feminists—who battled to remake the jury.”) This was one of my favorite papers presented at the first annual UChicago Constitutional Law Conference last spring.
The Unitary Executive and the Due Process State, by Emily Bremer and Bill Eskridge. A very interesting piece arguing that administrative adjudication should be preserved from the impending destruction of Humphrey’s Executor. Of course, I would say that part of the confusion arose when we first started saying that Article II employees, rather than those vested with judicial power, could satisfy the requirements of due process — see Adjudication Outside Article III.
Also rethinking due process in a different direction, No Rights for Deportees?, by Philip Hamburger — an investigation of the “Algerians” in 1785, from one of the original “protection” revisionists.
An Abundant Lack of Introspection, a Cato review of Abundance by Jonathan Adler (“Klein and Thompson . . . want an abundance agenda without having to embrace the market institutions upon which abundance depends”).
A Warning Sign? The Washington Supreme Court Declines to Adopt the Restatement (Third), by Daniel Listwa at the Transnational Litigation Blog. As a Third Restatement skeptic (despite also being an ALI member) I very much agree with Listwa that “for the Restatement (Third) to achieve widespread adoption, it may need to present its rules more explicitly as descriptive summaries of convergent judicial practice—emphasizing empirical patterns rather than theoretical frameworks.”
Grading Machines: Can AI Exam-Grading Replace Law Professors? by Cope, Frankenreiter, Hirst, Posner, Schwarcz, and Thorley. (“We find that, when provided with a detailed rubric, the LLM grades correlate with the human grader at Pearson correlation coefficients of up to 0.93.” !!!)
