Can slightly less addled readers than I name Supreme Court cases where the court held that a state constitution was held to violate a federal statute? I'm positive such cases exist-- under the Voting Rights Act if nothing else-- but nonetheless have been oddly unable to enumerate any, perhaps because I keep getting mentally distracted by U..S. Term Limits and Gregory and other cases that aren't actual examples.

I haven't posted because I've been busy, and then because it seemed to self-satirical to start posting again about why I'm not posting. Plus, most of the interesting things that have been on my mind lately have either been fodder for academic work I'm trying to get done, related to not-yet-bloggable events, or merely boring and opaque to most readers (although anybody with thoughts about the original understanding of the federal habeas statute, Brown v. Allen, or the criminal law of judgments more generally is invited to email them to me).

Plus two of my three classes this year functionally forbid internet use (one class permits computers but not the internet; the other permits the internet but not computers!), which is beside the point because they're interesting and fast-moving enough that I wouldn't blog in them anyway.

Meanwhile, the entertainment-starved can read about my meeting with Belle Lettre, job prospects for YLS grads, and even now I'm trying to think of a third random link to talk onto this list and I'm stumped.

Not quite 100 hours, but very late at the office type things.

I should note in the quick hits department that Jacob T. Levy (is the T for Tiberius?) makes a point here, that other, less cool minds made here.

Also, the Senator point has been sticking at me. Too small of a sample set, but in the 35 elections since 1865, people holding the office of senator have run 10 times, losing seven of those contests. This is worse than governors, who have won 9 of 19 contests (there was one governor-governor election, Tilden-Hayes in 1876, so the governor record is actually 9-11). But... here's the thing. Senators ran against sitting presidents 6 times. If you take those elections out, and take out the seven elections where governors ran against sitting presidents, you get governors (5/12) and senators (2/4). Again. Sample sets far too small, and governors do seem to have better luck than senators when running against a sitting president, but the discussion in the media makes it seem like senators are doomed as presidential candidates. In fact, it just seems that after 1865, senators replaced presidents as the candidate to run against incumbent presidents (Kerry/Bush, Dole/Clinton, Mondale/Reagan, Nixon/McGovern, Goldwater/Johnson). Before 1865, it was Ambassadors or Cabinet Secretaries (Charles Pinckney! JQ Adams! (lost the first time, stole it the second time, got trounced the third time).

I don't know where Will is, but as for myself, the recent lack of posting is completely related to the fact that work is hovering north of the 100 billable hour per week threshold. That means no blogging, and it's too bad, because I had some things to say about Michael Pollan's essay in the New York Times last week, and about the best club sandwich I've ever had in my life, ordered at an embarassing time in the morning in a place I can't talk about for work reasons. If you've ever wondered why the club sandwich is a staple of hotel life, eating the one I had last night answers all questions.

Hopefully, I'll be free-er soon.