E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
NOTE: PLEASE SEE THE POSTING ABOVE EXPLAINING THE SHIFT FROM "THUG" TO "BULLY" IN THE TITLE LINE AND THE REWRITTEN SENTENCE TWO BELOW.
I apologized to Ben Nelson and even, kind of, to Joe Lieberman, for earlier referring them (in a post that I then deleted) as "thugs." "Thug," with its connotation of a willingness to use violence, may be too extreme, but certainly the word "bully" is appropriate for Richard Shelby, who, as Jack (and the Washington Post) described below, is holding up the Senate in order to gain what Chicago-types call "rents" from the national government, i.e., a presumptively unnecessary venture to provide jobs for his constituents in the name of honoring "national defense." Yes, I know that politics involves lots of logrolling, compromise, and all of that. No one is pure, and money, including earmarks, as Jesse Unruh once said, is the mother's mild of politics. That being said, Senator Shelby is willing to destroy the United States as a functioning government--given that it really is necessary to have heads of agencies and the like--in order to gain his objectives. We might even describe him as a terrorist instead of a bully.
The point is that it is incumbent on the Senate to do something about this, and NOW. It is not simply a question of shaming, for that assumes that bullies are sensitive to shame. He should be formally censured for "abuse of the rules of the Senate" and, if he refuses to withdraw the holds, expelled from the Senate. (Note that the Senate has the same plenary authority to expel as to set its own rules.) Perhaps we should be grateful to the bullying Senator from Alabama, for he is indeed bringing the contemporary crisis of the Senate, what even more moderate establishment types like Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann have labeled "The Broken Branch," to a boil. If the Senate doesn't act, then there should indeed be mass action by the public that is seeing its government disintegrate in front of its very eyes (if only they can look).