Will Baude

They sent it back.

It may well be that the case is still being misadjudicated and that in the end, you know, all the Supreme Court has resolved as an abstract issue of principle rather than, you know, justice for the particular litigant.

But that's fine because the Supreme Court is not a court of error correction.

Yeah, I mean, so to be fair, in this case, part of the issue is it's not clear how super quick and easy testing the evidence will be.

The objection of the lower court is that the evidence is possibly contaminated.

It's not clear how much it will tell us.

His response is, well, I mean, it will tell us something.

I actually have a project halfway through of trying to transit the Constitution into the top hundred words.

How's that working?

Constitution's not one of the words, so it has to be called the plan for deciding things.

Okay, I like that.

It seems good.

I started this pre-large language model, so presumably Claude could just make short work of it now and finish it out.

So the basic idea is if you've been convicted of something and you want to bring a new suit, you can't bring that.

For money, at least.

At least for money.

Damages.

Under the general civil rights statute.

You can't do that if bringing that suit would necessarily impugn your prior conviction.

So the original I mean, the original core idea is you were in jail for a crime you did not commit or a trial that was unfair in some way.