Will Bode

Probably. I think the general law has always had a mix of custom and reason, a mix of what we think of as dumb positivism and a mix of using some sort of functionalist smart principles. Those two things have always been the elements of the general law.

Probably. I think the general law has always had a mix of custom and reason, a mix of what we think of as dumb positivism and a mix of using some sort of functionalist smart principles. Those two things have always been the elements of the general law.

In the 19th century, lawyers always were kind of fighting about how much weight to give to each of those two things in a way that's not totally satisfactory. So yes, there'd be a little bit of both.

In the 19th century, lawyers always were kind of fighting about how much weight to give to each of those two things in a way that's not totally satisfactory. So yes, there'd be a little bit of both.

And to do it well, you'd need somebody who was pretty sophisticated about economics and somebody who was sophisticated about history and jurisprudence, or one person who was sophisticated about all of them, I guess, to really kind of try to establish it.

And to do it well, you'd need somebody who was pretty sophisticated about economics and somebody who was sophisticated about history and jurisprudence, or one person who was sophisticated about all of them, I guess, to really kind of try to establish it.

You might need a co-author.

You might need a co-author.

Yeah. I mean, now one claim sometimes is they had a much less polarized bar. The country is polarized in various ways, but a lot of what the lawyers in the 19th century called the general law might really have been general only as 19th century lawyers who all were kind of reading the same books and talking about the same stuff.

Yeah. I mean, now one claim sometimes is they had a much less polarized bar. The country is polarized in various ways, but a lot of what the lawyers in the 19th century called the general law might really have been general only as 19th century lawyers who all were kind of reading the same books and talking about the same stuff.

and maybe even they were kind of the country's secret sauce, they had reached a set of norms and principles among themselves that were sufficiently functional that we could delegate certain things to them and be glad they were handling it well and responsibly.

and maybe even they were kind of the country's secret sauce, they had reached a set of norms and principles among themselves that were sufficiently functional that we could delegate certain things to them and be glad they were handling it well and responsibly.

And it might be we don't have those people anymore because our lawyers probably are much more polarized than they used to be, down to the level of first principles. And so it might be that it's a consequence of the

And it might be we don't have those people anymore because our lawyers probably are much more polarized than they used to be, down to the level of first principles. And so it might be that it's a consequence of the

changes in elite society and legal education that that mean we need somebody else one possibility obvious possibility would be to use the federal society which seems to be well made to do this and if we could all just agree to let them handle all of our problems we have nothing to worry about

changes in elite society and legal education that that mean we need somebody else one possibility obvious possibility would be to use the federal society which seems to be well made to do this and if we could all just agree to let them handle all of our problems we have nothing to worry about

We agree. I will confess, I did a bunch of media about qualified immunity in 2020 when Congress was thinking of abolishing qualified immunity. And all I'd written about is that qualified immunity is made up and the Supreme Court probably shouldn't have done what it did. But then people ask you all these consequentialist questions about qualified immunity.

We agree. I will confess, I did a bunch of media about qualified immunity in 2020 when Congress was thinking of abolishing qualified immunity. And all I'd written about is that qualified immunity is made up and the Supreme Court probably shouldn't have done what it did. But then people ask you all these consequentialist questions about qualified immunity.

And it's clear you're supposed to say that you're confident that abolishing qualified immunity would lead to X and Y and Z. But of course, I've read enough of Daryl's work and people's work to know that it's very hard to predict with any confidence what would happen if qualified immunity was abolished. So I just try to avoid those questions.

And it's clear you're supposed to say that you're confident that abolishing qualified immunity would lead to X and Y and Z. But of course, I've read enough of Daryl's work and people's work to know that it's very hard to predict with any confidence what would happen if qualified immunity was abolished. So I just try to avoid those questions.