Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

Of course! Might as well cut out the middle-man...

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

Yes. I think this is much more careful and insightful than the original speech deserves, though. Really, I think the message is "I want to be allowed to appoint Ekins and that guy who says he does law not politics to the UKSC".

1 2

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

Yes absolutely. I debated whether I should include a caveat like this in the original post. There were all sorts of unpalatable things about early 20th C LC decisions (eg religious quotas). But notwithstanding: in the modern era, there was never an LC that operated in the way he's suggesting.

1 2

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

Yes, entirely true. It's not really possible to put the old LC back together again without dealing with all these very complex outworkings from later evolution of the system.

1 2

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

There may, in abstract, be an argument for greater political interest and input in judicial appointments as a means of enhancing trust. That this now invariably comes wrapped with a threat to appoint friends and dismiss enemies, however, shows the wisdom of removing politicians from these decisions.

1 1 3

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

As with so much of the contemporary critique of the legal constitution, this golden age myth ignores the fact that politicians were subject to - and observed - conventions that controlled how they used their powers, including conventions about independence and political neutrality.

1 2

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

Obviously, this speech is crassly offensive in multiple ways, and does violence to judicial independence. But I think it's also important to recognise that there was never a 'golden age' when Lord Chancellors just appointed and sacked whoever they wanted as judges. This is an authoritarian fantasy.

2 5 17

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

Just because you give it to us straight, irascible but loveable Public Law journal account. It's a compliment...

2

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

(Because this is BlueSky I should probably make it clear that that was a joke.)

2

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

I think you're doing voter corruption the wrong way round...?

1 1

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

Unbound OJLS v unbound Public Law

Images of the old Canadian Supreme Court judicial robes (left; red with white fur trim, strong Santa vibes) and the new (right; black with two red lines, no real vibes at all).

6

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 1d

I think people who assume Gavin won't now get votes haven't spent enough time engaging with student politics and the popularity of RON (re-open nominations).

1 1

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 2d

Banter heuristic says Jim Gavin now wins the Irish presidential election as the Re-Open Nominations candidate.

1

Reposted by Dr Patrick O'Brien

Ben Yong @bymyong.bsky.social · 2d

I‘m giving a public talk at UCL on Thurs 16 Oct. The title is “Bureaucracy and distrust: the civil service in the constitution” looking at the civil service’s constitutional foundations, and how it might respond to a populist govt. @sirJJkc.bsky.social will chair!
www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/...

Hybrid | CLP - Bureaucracy and Distrust: The Civil Service in the Constitution

This lecture will be delivered by Dr Ben Yong, as part of the Current Legal Problems Lecture Series 2025-26

www.ucl.ac.uk

3 24 45

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 16d

Just in case Red Bull are reading, I'm willing to be fired from Red Bull for a 10% discount on whatever you're willing to be fired for. Not here to make friends.

1 2

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 16d

The federal system makes this institutionally a bit easier, but still extraordinary (in any system) to see sitting judges openly dissent from apex court decisions.

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 18d

Check out Justice Eddins’ complete repudiation of the Roberts Court here. It’s worth reading in full. It’s quite brave—and exceedingly rare—for a sitting judge to speak so candidly and scathingly about SCOTUS’ partisan contortions of law, history, and fact.
www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/u...

The Supreme Court devalues democracy. Thirty-seven state
constitutions block public funds from supporting religious
entities. Richard Schragger, Micah Schwartzman & Nelson Tebbe,
Reestablishing Religion, 92 U. Chi. L. Rev. 199, 211 (2025) .
The Court aims to federally-repeal these state constitutional
provisions.
The Court's beliefs meddle with local and state
governments. Forcing states to send public funds to religious
entities federalizes public policy. By unprincipled fiat. See
also New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597
U.S. 1 (2022) (zero to superpower).
Taxpayer funds now flow to religious institutions. So, the
government collects money from nonbelievers (under the threat of
jail), and uses some of it to support religion. And since not
all religions will receive public funds, the government forces
minority faiths to support other faiths, or else.
The Court twists text, history, purpose, precedent, and
public meaning to offend the First Amendment's character-of-
government structure and the Constitution's separate sovereignty
structure.
As it steamrolls both, the Court says nothing about church-
state separation and federalism principles. The Court's
nevermind stance to the structural features of the Constitution
"has unfolded with little engagement with, and occasional

4

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 17d

Et tu, FT?

Financial Times @financialtimes.com · 17d

Britain’s zombie universities should put Schumpeter on the syllabus on.ft.com/46tIQC1 | opinion

Britain’s zombie universities should put Schumpeter on the syllabus

It’s time to borrow from the corporate crib sheets — and if all else fails, creative destruction is a force for good

on.ft.com

3

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 18d

That’s a good shout In fairness.

2

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 18d

Right folks. I guess that’s it. We’re done.

What’s everyone doing as their post-academic career? I’m thinking of going for grumpy-but-loveable owner of a bowling alley, who’s constantly working on a never-quite-finished novel.

University of Oxford @ox.ac.uk · 19d

NEW: Oxford will be the first UK university to give all staff and students free ChatGPT Edu access, from this academic year.

ChatGPT Edu is built for education, with enhanced privacy and security.

Graphic from the University of Oxford, featuring an image of a glowing, digital brain with the text: 'Generative AI at Oxford'. Highlights that ChatGPT Edu is now available to all staff and students. Includes a link for more information: ox.ac.uk/gen-ai

2 5 20

Reposted by Dr Patrick O'Brien

Alan Rusbridger @arusbridger.bsky.social · 20d

Listen to this and weep for who we have lost. Just before he died the great Conor Gearty spoke with learning & passion about what his friend K Starmer must do to defend democracy. Try from about 35’ in if you’re pressed for time - but the whole episode is worth it open.spotify.com/episode/27xX...

Are we losing our civil liberties?

open.spotify.com

2 26 65

Reposted by Dr Patrick O'Brien

Harry Wallop @harrywallop.co.uk · 20d

Times births column today

31 140 390

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 21d

In this case we have, empirically, two rival interpretations. there is therefore an interpretive dispute and, empirically, factually, a dispute over meaning. Therefore ambiguity.

1

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 21d

If this were correct, though, any interpretive dispute would be instantly unintelligible if one party to the dispute declared by fiat that the text is unambiguous. There would be nothing to resolve.

1

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 21d

I think my difficulty with this is that we have a dispute over the meaning of language, as you say. Where there is a dispute of this kind, the normal approach is to have recourse to secondary interpretive rules. Your argument is that there is no ambiguity, so we can’t have recourse.

2

Dr Patrick O'Brien @patrickcobrien.bsky.social · 22d

I just can't fathom "the Vienna Convention or any of the background statements don't help" as a position. For international treaties and international law, the VC and the travaux préparatoires *are* the basis of interpretation. Domestic interpretive rules are inapplicable. That's the whole point.

1 3