YouSaid · the spoken record

Jamal Greene

lines on the record: 50
first: 2022-06-01
most recent: 2022-06-01
sittings or episodes: 1
sources: podcast

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“Think it's just a combination of two things, and they're not unusual in the sense that it's some kind of esoteric thing. It's a combination of being genuinely a self-starter and also being genuinely curious. Curiosity goes hand in hand with a certain degree of humility, not knowing that you're right about things and just wanting to know more and more and more at all times, but also being someone who seeks out ideas on their own, who doesn't need someone to tell them something, who sees, who hears something, and says, oh, that's interesting to me intrinsically. I'd like to know more about that as opposed to wanting to know how it's instrumental to them getting to some other step.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I teach constitutional law. That's not the only thing I teach, but it's one of the main things I teach. And one thing that I try to communicate to students is that”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I don't know that it's so unusual, but certainly my most effective work habit is to use the entire day to work. I get a lot of work done late at night, most of my time during the day is spent teaching classes or meeting with students and all writing and reading and preparation and everything is much later. And that means I don't watch television shows. It's a really extended workday. I work during soccer practices. I work sitting in the car while my kids are doing something or other. I don't segregate times of the day where I can't work.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, so my father's not a rap fan. He was a big jazz fan, so Coltrane, Miles Davis were people he grew up loving. And he also was into sort of classic rock of his generation. So, you know, you're Bob Dylan, you're Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles. Nothing exotic, but good music.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“He's prolific. He's extremely productive. He's very smart. He's not lazy in the way in which he constructs his lyrics. And he manages to be both musical and a poet. This is something that my brother has struggled with early in his career, is that he's a poet. He's not a musician, and he had to learn to be a musician and trying to combine those things is a rare gift”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“The best rapper of all time depends if we're talking about lyrics or something else. I'll go with Black Thought, who is probably who my brother would say as well, who's the lead rapper for the roots”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So I was in Brooklyn for all my childhood, and Park Slope, for part of it, in a place called Flatlands for the rest of it. And since adulthood, I've basically lived in Manhattan. And one thing I'd say is just an appreciation for pluralism that is still a part of my work, I think, comes from going to school on the upper east side and laying my head an hour and a half away from that across lots of different communities, lots of different neighborhoods, and learning to just appreciate human diversity, learning to get used to it, the ways in which my high school community was very different from my family and seeing the value in each of those communities, I think was a very important part of formulating my values so that I could never labor under the fiction that there is any one value that we all pursue.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Gosh, I don't know where that came from. It's true, but maybe nothing other than that I like my dad. I think he's a good guy. I think it showed something about my interest in taxonomy, which I think is probably not unconnected to later becoming a baseball reporter as I became a kind of stadhead in high school and in college. So there is probably a story to tell there.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I don't think there's no right to privacy. So I think that the Supreme Court no longer grounds the sorts of things that we associate with the constitutional right to privacy in a right to privacy. So we think of that in terms of birth control and abortion rights. And that is no longer the language and hasn't been for many, many decades. It hasn't been the language the court uses. So, I mean, there's no right to privacy in a descriptive sense. I do think privacy is an important value to people. When it's being infringed by private actors, there are other important values that are also relevant, namely the economic rights of the private actors. If we're talking about government surveillance, right, I'd want to know why is the government surveilling? What is the value that it's serving? Is it hand-handed? What are the possibilities of abuse? Could it achieve these objectives in some way that doesn't involve the privacy infringement? So I think privacy is a right, should be treated in the same way as other rights.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I'm skeptical that that's in fact how YouTube and Twitter behave, that they take things down because Facebook takes something down. But I'd also say it's complicated because there are things that come down because there are good reasons to take them down. And so, yes, as I said, I think one should be concerned with market concentration and market power. One should be concerned if there is speech that should be proliferating but isn't. One should be concerned that the decision makers are private actors. And one should also be concerned with the harms of certain kinds of speech and the ways in which those harms can be amplified in the social media context. One should be concerned about the particular rights of the platform, right? These are private companies but also have their own views about what their speech environment should be. So there are a number of other factors that count in addition to whether some particular piece of content should get spread.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, I think it depends on the content. So, generally speaking, yes, I won't speak for the oversight board, and I'll just speak for myself. Generally speaking, yes, I do think that one should generally be concerned with whether the market for users is a competitive market or not. So if Facebook's the only game in town, as it is in many countries, I think one is right to be more concerned about its content moderation practices under those circumstances than under circumstances of genuine competition. And so it would then follow that if all the companies are doing the same thing, whether or not they're coordinating their behavior, one should be more worried about that. But it's hard to be abstract about that because some content comes down because there's good reason to take it down.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I don't think there is an answer because I don't think that the question is whether we're right. I think the question is whether we're managing disagreement in a way that leads to social harmony and social cohesion. So the problem, again, is not a problem that some of us are getting rights wrong. The problem you want abortion rights I don't, or vice versa, you want labor rights I don't, or vice versa. And one of us is right and one of us is wrong. The problem is that we disagree. We don't agree on the way of resolving our disagreement either. The job of the judge”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I hesitate to label it. I would say proportionality, which means in this sense that one is constantly concerned with, and proportionality as to a set of values that are embedded within the existing legal tradition. So within our legal tradition, we value freedom of speech. We value racial equality. We value a certain degree of independence and autonomy. And those are differently affected by different kinds of laws. Laws also protect some of those values, right? So it's a constant negotiation. And of course, democracy is also a value, right? So there's multiple competing values. I don't have a key because the key presupposes some hierarchy between the values that I reject. I think that in each individual case, those values are going to be affected to different degrees. And that's part of what the judge's job is, is to figure out whether there is some disproportionality in the way in which value”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I think the most important value for an adjudicator of a case involving competing rights is humility and the recognition that the adjudicator doesn't have superior knowledge, superior moral knowledge about the way of resolving these kinds of conflicts, that these kinds of conflicts are political conflicts. At some level, if we think the politics are acting in a perfectly sensible way, then maybe there's not much of a role for the adjudicator. Maybe you just let politics work itself out in the way it should if we think that there's something that politics is missing. And when I say we, again, I think people are going to have different views about this. If you think something's missing, if you think that someone's not fully taking account of the full dignity of someone, if you think the government is acting grossly disproportionately, then that's when you step in.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Think there may well be context in which we are willing to tolerate that as a society, but I think it has to be contextual. This is partly a political conversation, right? So I might have my own views about this and others have their views. And I think it's okay for those views to be worked out through politics, through forms of dialogue. Maybe you strike down something at the margins and you see how the state responds. You see how people respond. I think quartz should be part of a broader political conversation about these balances of values that We all disagree about.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I wouldn't deny that that's Prima Facia correct. I would phrase it slightly differently or frame it slightly differently, which is to say that I think people do have a basic right to the government justifying when it regulates them. So I don't feel a need to label that as a right. Labeling it as a right carries some baggage and maybe makes people have greater expectations of how far they can go than I think is healthy. But yes, absolutely. If there's no good reason to regulate, then the government shouldn't regulate. There are some issues with a regime of that sort. And as a US lawyer, people will throw Lochner versus New York at that kind of system. But to my mind, the problem in the Lochner case, which is this famous legal case from 1905 about maximum Mauer's law, which the court struck down, is not that the court should never strike down maximum hours laws. It's that that particular law was well justified. So I think the battle over these things should be a battle over justification, not a battle.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I also would say as a tentative matter, right, that occupational licensing for interior designers would be a policy that I would think should be struck down, as you do. Our current system doesn't allow that kind of claim to be struck down. In some ways, this is analogous to the disability situation where if you've got no good reason for a particular law, not fully analogous, if you have no good reason for a particular law, that law shouldn't be in place. I say tentatively because I think that all of these kinds of cases shouldn't turn on some major premise about economic regulation or some such. It should depend on the facts. And I don't know enough about interior design to know whether there's some good reason to have occupational licensing. It doesn't seem like there's a good reason, but I'd want to know factually, right? So the empirical record matters.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So the fact that it also means that the legal claims will be involved is something that I think has overcome by the connection between the actual accommodation and what we think justice requires. The other flip side of that is there are lots of rights that we have in our culture that are not actually connected to any deep conception of justice. I have a right to watch pornography in my home. If the state said that I don't have that right, that's costly to me, but the connection between that and I think many of our conceptions of justice, I think as much weaker than the connection when it comes to disability rights, right? So it's not that I'm saying we don't have many rights now and we should have many more. It's that there's a misalignment between the rights that we think are worth it and the rights that we don't think are worth it.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I think if we're talking about individual claims, let me back up. It is the case that if you make more claims legally available, people may argue about whether those claims should be recognized. In the particular context of disability, the problem that I see is that there are genuine claims of right, genuine claims of justice that are”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, it depends on what we're talking about, right? So I'm not someone who believes that one's rights should necessarily turn on one's individual claim to an exemption from some scheme, right? So part of when I talk about disability rights, a couple of things to say. One is that we should respect political processes that protect disability rights. And right now we don't fully. And that's not necessarily a matter of presenting oneself as disabled, a business having to make a reasonable accommodation helps anyone regardless of anyone who needs the accommodation, regardless of what their particular legal designation might be. But there's also another point, which is that when we're talking about disability rights, there's genuine injustice that I think many of us recognize as injustice, that people who are less able are less able to thrive is something that it's not just a matter of kind of a legal technicality that we think that these people should have rights. It's that we think they should have rights. And so there shouldn't be legal formalisms that get in the way of.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“No, I don't think so. I don't think that providing more openness in the law to disability claims requires people to be in some kind of registry or something of disabilities that's stigmatizing or something rights are for those who wish to exercise them, not for those who don't.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I'm skeptical of the cultural premise, or at least I think it requires more specification. I do think that Americans have a history of being paranoid about various things. But this idea that there's something that state building is somehow un-American or something, I don't buy it. There was an inflection point, I think an important inflection point in the 1960s and around the response to the great society that I think one can't separate from race quite as cleanly as one might wish to, that associates big government with helping out racial minorities in particular. And there was a reaction to that. I'm not conceding. I won't concede at this moment, at least that we just have to accept that that's just an inevitable feature of the American people, that the solution to which is some kind of deregulation, it's hard for me to draw a line from what I see as the problem to that solution.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Think that we're too apt to submit political disputes to legal resolution. I think that for sure. I think what your friends are telling you about police officers is slightly different insofar as one could have a deeply non-legalistic culture in which the correct advice is to not talk to police officers if those people are corrupt, if those people are abusive. I think that that's, at least when I hear that advice, and I might be differently situated than you, that's what people are saying is someone might be out to trick you. And that might be a mistrust of state power, as you mentioned before. Maybe it's a rational mistrust of state power, but I don't know that that's about legalism, which again, I think is a separate potential problem in that we tend to formulate our problems in legal terms as if the right way to solve them is to decide how they are to be resolved by a court or how they are to be resolved by some adjudicative official, as opposed to thinking about our problems in terms of just inherent in, again, pluralism.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, I think the biggest potential problem is an inability of courts and other political actors further down in the system to know what their rights and obligations are. So the U.S. Supreme Court is an apex court. It sits on the top of a pyramid, a hierarchy of other courts and all of those courts have constitutional jurisdiction, right? So you have the potential for chaos that is not present in many other jurisdictions, although some Canada, for example, has the same basic structure, a kind of deep legal uncertainty is, I think, something that should be concerned about and should watch out for. I think it's overstated. As I've said, I think some flexibility and some inconsistency in the law is not as bad as sometimes we say it is. But I do think that that can upset expectations. It can make it hard to plan. So I think that's the thing to watch out for.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, if we're talking subway infrastructure, right? I mean, it depends on what you're talking about, right? So different cities are different things. New York is very bad at subway infrastruct I think generally we should constantly be concerned about the ability of government to be effective. And if some particular rights regime, whether the one I'm describing or the one I'm criticizing, is standing in the way, that's a problem. I'm not suggesting any kind of essentialism about this. But what I observe is that people use the putative absolutism of rights to prevent government from being effective on quite a regular basis”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I don't mean political negotiation at a congressional level. I mean, in our day-to-day interactions with each other, right? There are a lot of different sites for politics, right? Not just in some legislature or some such. What the call is, is a call for there to be less trumps, in that sense less veto points, because nothing's ever quite a Trump. And people knowing that they're not going to win in court are less likely to go to court or not being sure they're going to win.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, no, I don't think so. So when I talk about rights federalism, I don't mean sort of creating more rights in the sense in which we associate rights with a certain kind of absolutism, and that's not what I mean. What I mean is rights are not just about things that courts say. Rights are grounded in political negotiation. And I think the number of sites where that political negotiation is possible should be greater. I think that that gives people leverage in political negotiation in ways that they don't have, when you say, okay, you've got a kind of absolute free speech right that applies the same way everywhere. And anyone who wants to stop something speech-grounded, let's say, can invoke this absolute universal speech right. I think that that's as destructive, more destructive of government effectiveness. I think government effectiveness is itself something that can and should be understood in rights terms. We have a right to democratic participation and to the fruit of that participation.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I am sympathetic to federalism. Part of the reason it may be perceived that I don't go in that direction is because historically federalism has been used in large part to defend white supremacy. It doesn't need to be used in that way. And if we're not identifying, not recognizing that kind of pathology, I think federalism is entirely compatible with and makes sense in the context of rights. In fact, I think that we sometimes say that rights have to be universal in some sense. I'm not sure why that's true. I think rights are constantly a subject of contestation, just as governance is constantly a subject of contestation. And there might be lessons to be learned from having some flexibility in how we think about those in different institutional contexts and across geographic space.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Of that. But I think that's destructive. I think pluralism is something we need to embrace. And embracing it requires us to understand that we're different from each other in important ways and we have to reconcile those differences.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I think the upstream factors are maybe a bit more contingent than you're suggesting, right? So the way in which Americans understood rights before the 1960s was, I think, generally quite different or the middle of the 20th century was quite different from how we understand rights today. We often tie our rights arrangements to the founders or to the Bill of Rights or something in our ancient constitutional arrangements, but that's certainly not how the founders thought about rights, not in the quasi-abolute sense that we do. I do think suspicion of state power, I think that's accurate as to Americans. I think we're more classically liberal-minded than Europeans say. But I don't think that that's an obstacle to saying that. So part of what I'm urging is a recognition that rights pluralism is inseparable from pluralism full stop, right? So part of it is being accepting of pluralism in a way that I think it's right that there's partly a culture of resistance.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Rights that within our legal culture are understood as being very, very weak, right? So you have this kind of binary where you're kind of choosing whether you're talking about something very weak or something very strong instead of talking about rights much more contextually.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I think there are multiple cultural determinants. I think our experience with race is maybe, if I had to point to a single one, it would be that insofar as we associate rights with a particular history of racial race-based pathology, that people have rights in the same way that African Americans have rights to not be forced to go to a segregated school. And that association of rights with pathological governance, I think, leads to a certain kind of binary understanding of what rights can do. In my view, rights in a constitutional sense can arise in lots of situations, whether the government's acting well or not acting well, because rights, I think, are just a byproduct of pluralism. So other countries don't have the same historical baggage that we do when it comes to race. There's also some issues around, you know, on the one hand, we think that rights should be understood in really strong terms. And on the other hand, there are a bunch of economic”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I think that's fair. I wouldn't want to get too specialized, but there's a good argument that we're already too specialized in a technical legal sense. I believe, and I've said before in writing, that the court should take what we call...”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So, I wouldn't be opposed to that necessarily. I'd have to think about it more, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that. Again, I do think there are a number of kinds of cases the court hears that are not well suited to people who are not lawyers, but there are also cases the court hears that are not well suited to people who are lawyers, or at least not uniquely suited or especially suited to people who are lawyers. So I would not be totally opposed to that idea. I resist a little bit the idea that the reason for that is grounded in democracy in some serious sense or representation in some sense insofar as I do think that the court plays a role that's different from other democratic institutions. But again, I don't think it has to be played by lawyers. I think that's a fair criticism.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“A non lawyer. So there haven't been any non lawyers on the Supreme Court. There would be people who didn't complete law school, but back then you could become a lawyer in other ways. So no one in the US Supreme Court who is not understood to be a lawyer at the time, I don't think it would be disastrous to have a non-lawyer on the court. There are non-lawyers on the judiciary committee, some of whom ask good questions who are smart people who could figure it out. But a lot of the court's docket is quite technical. And I happen to think that the court should have panels. Not everyone should hear every case. And so if you did something like that, maybe you could have a sort of non-lawyer panel or something. But, you know, outside of the big ticket, affirmative action cases, your abortion cases, you know, these big controversial things, I don't think you need lawyers to decide those questions. But I do think it's pretty hard to be a non-lawyer and decide a technical statutory interpretation case.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Is another question. I don't have an apriary answer to that. I do think there's value in having people who are lawyers. I actually think I'm okay with mostly lawyers or maybe even all lawyers, but they don't have to come from judging. Elena Kagan didn't come from judging, and I think she is a terrific Supreme Court justice Hugo Black didn't come from judging. I think he was terrific Supreme Court justice. So people who come from politics, people who come from academia, people who come from other forms of lawyering, but not straight from the judiciary, it's a different kind of judicial role at the Supreme Court. The cases are closer. They're not just strictly bound by precedent. They're often deciding serious political moral questions. And so I think having some exposure to other forms of decision making is perfectly sensible.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, the confirmation process is not undemocratic, right? So the way in which they're chosen is not undemocratic. Yes, their decisions are not democratic in the same way in which elections are democratic, although they do vote. So in that sense, they're democratic. But their political appointees and their political appointees for a reason because they make law for society. And so people who do that should be chosen through democratic means, and they are chosen in that way. So as long as we're talking about the selection process, yeah, we should know who they are. We should know what their views are. We should debate them. And we should make decisions on the basis of the conclusions we reach.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Should is a funny word. I think in an ideal world, I mean, maybe we should be asking them nothing, right? Because the confirmation process doesn't actually serve that much of an informational value. It's political posturing and so forth. But I think if one were actually to try to design a confirmation process that was useful, I think you would just ask them their views about cases that have been decided. Ask them if those cases were correct. They say that biases them in some way or conveys bias. I just don't buy that. One can have a view about something decided in the past and change one's view based on new information. And there's no necessary bias. And so the idea that they haven't thought about these things or have no formed views or that we shouldn't be aware of what their views are seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic. If I'd brigade and could control the process, I would have a conversation about Supreme Court's docket.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“You could do a version of that. I think given the citation practices in law, it's hard to fully anonymize, but I think that's the right aspiration. When I was a law review editor, we mostly did that at Yale, and I think a number of LAR reviews try to do that. Sometimes, again, it's hard to avoid. But I think that's the right goal.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Think generally that's a good practice. I think given the volume of law review submissions, it maybe can be a little bit hard to actually operationalize that. But I think it's a good aspiration.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Not very efficient gatekeepers, and you have lots and lots of lower views, and it's kind of hard to do sort of quality control, but you get a lot more stuff out there. And I think given that law has always has one foot in practice and one foot in the academy, I think there's really a lot of value in getting a lot of stuff out of there within our particular field.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, I think that there's something to be said for peer review, of which articles actually get selected. And that's a different function of law reviews. Selecting articles than the editing process, where I actually think students on balance, they're not always good at it, of course, but on balance, they, I think, add a lot of value to the editing process. And they fact check, for example, which I think we resist it because we think we know it all, but it's actually very valuable. I also think it's, you know, when you see some institution that seems to be inefficient, right? You have to think about what it's actually trying to produce. And I think part of what Laura Views are doing is giving a certain kind of experience to law students. They're not just about producing scholarship. And the second thing I'd say is, you know, there's always going to be a trade-off. You could have, you know, highly professionalized, highly elite gatekeepers. And then you keep out a lot of good stuff because it doesn't go through the right gate. On the other end, right, you have”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Schools are trying to optimize for different things. I don't know that schools should necessarily be or that there's any reason schools need to pick students on the basis of who they think will be good lawyers as such. Schools have a lot of different goals that they might have in mind. They might want to have a certain kind of community on campus. They might want to produce certain kinds of lawyers, which isn't just about a kind of abstract view of lawyer equality. So it just depends on what the output is. And that's going to vary both across schools and within schools, right? So you're looking for a certain kind of professional diversity in addition to a kind of Tom Cruise at the firm, kind of top-notch lawyer. I do think that the LSAT LSAT predicts for a certain kind of lawyerly skill. I don't doubt that.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I think I would just use it less. I don't know that I would eliminate it entirely. But the idea that people should be admitted to law school, 50% or 60% or something based on LSAT scores seems to me likely to be problematic. There's problems on either end, right? If you get rid of tests like that, then people who are very good at succeeding at things are going to succeed in other ways. And so there is a certain transparency about the LSAT that I think is maybe not something you'd want to fully eliminate. But it does bother me that your performance on a three-hour test has such a profound influence on which schools one is able to go to. It would surprise me if there are not better ways of doing it, but I'm not deep enough in admissions offices to launch a strong criticism.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“That's possible. I think it would be folded into tuition. And so I think part of it is students make different choices when they perceive it to be something that's a baked-in cost versus perceive it to be something that they have to pay for separately. And if some students are buying used books or some students are buying only digital copies just because of their perception of cost, that seems to me to have some real unfairness to it. Now it's possible that there's not that big of a difference. It's not a significant enough difference that we should care about the distributional consequences. But I tend to think that just as other law school costs are not a la carte, I think textbooks shouldn't be there. You could say the same thing about courses, right?”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So, I think that creates a lot of distortions where you end up with people who are at these firms who don't want to be there. And it biases the market so that people who want to go into public interest, for example, are the ones who are able to take that risk on, which is not a very good match between who's genuinely interested in other alternative avenues and who just can't afford to take certain kinds of risks. So at least in my world, which is the world of a certain kind of law school, I think that's a major problem.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I think there's a small thing I would change, and this sounds really small, but it seems so straightforward to me that law students shouldn't be buying their own textbooks separate from the ordinary expenses of you pay a tuition fee and the price of textbooks should just be kind of diffused through tuition costs and the ways in which people pay for those should also pay for their textbooks. But that's a small thing. The bigger thing is I would change the calendar for a professional hiring in law. This is a little bit esoteric, but it matters a lot to our students is that if you want to go into a job at a major law firm and you go to a good law school, those jobs get offered to you at a time when you have no other alternatives. And so it makes no sense, regardless of one's sort of individual preferences. It makes no sense to turn down those jobs when you actually have no alternative.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“You know, I think as long as its limits are understood, it's not a problem, just as any other form of reasoning has its limits. I think sometimes we confuse internal debates about interpretation, internal debates about the right answer to legal problems with the sort of external question of what's the right answer in this case. And what I mean by that is that it's perfectly sensible to say that the right answer to legal question should be supplied by law and economics so long as you understand that other methods are also legitimate and you're actually trying to stake a claim within a conversation about method. I think people understand those limits, it's all fair game.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Think baseball should have an exemption from antitrust law. I suppose if it's less popular than it once was, then there's whatever justification there is is diminished. That sounds right to me.”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I wish I could answer that question better than I can. And part of it is I don't pay much attention to baseball anymore. I do think that sometimes I'm also not the best law and economics reasoner, but I can try. I think sometimes baseball's senses are misaligned. As far as I can tell, at least, you know, I used to be a baseball reporter and I worked for a magazine that was doing exactly what Major League Baseball is doing, which is having its audience get older and older. And there's a couple of strategies one can employ in response to that. You can sort of change the product so that you try to attract younger people and different people, or you can, you know, cling to what your old subscriber base in some sense. And I think the structure of baseball is not really well suited to the modern age. And they should hold on as long as they can to the people who really care about it. I don't think you're going to move second base a little bit or put in some robot umps and then you'll get 18 year olds getting into baseball i think you have”
2022-06-01 · Conversations with Tyler · Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source