The To-Read Pile 3

Some great stuff you might've missed

The To-Read Pile is my regular digest of worthwhile essays and articles you might’ve missed. In this third installment, I highlight work that appeared in The Dispatch, Politico, National Review, NYT, WSJ, City Journal, The Atlantic, Law & Liberty, Inside Higher Education, Commentary, Governing, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and more.

Please become a paid subscriber so you can receive The To-Read Pile and Community Day, my two members-only columns.

---

SCOTUS

Michael Greve wrote an absolutely outstanding essay in the most recent National Review about federalism and the Roberts Court—particularly the regulatory relationship among states. It will make you think about prudence, principles, the purpose of distributed power, the role of judges, and much more. There are meaningful differences among the conservative justices, and this piece does an expert job of describing why this particular difference of opinion is so important. It has some great history, too.

Now, I’ve long found it difficult to understand Chief Justice Roberts’ jurisprudence. To me, it can come across as a mishmash of principles, court psychology, and political sensibilities. It’s unclear when he values court consensus, when he values public sentiment, when he values a constitutional principle. This NYT article on the Jan. 6 cases and more does nothing to convince me that my assessment is off. But, in fairness, this essay by Adam White—about the importance of the Court’s recent decisions on the administrative state—does attribute to the Chief a degree of consistency and prudence on a very important matter (one I’ve written about previously in this column).

---

Ay Yi Yi, A.I.

I want to strongly recommend this essay even though—actually, because—I disagree with it so strongly. Danny Crichton has written a smart, thought-provoking essay for City Journal making the case that governments should use more AI for decision-making. His fundamental claim amounts to “Yes, AI decision-making is a black box. But because the human mind is so inscrutable, human decision-making is a black box, too.” He believes our republic doesn’t necessarily require human decision-making; we need smart, efficient, transparent decision-making. Rather than passionately argue my opposition at great length, I’ll just say this: Our world is built on millennia of experience with humans living with human decisions. I’m not eager to unwind foundational elements of common life because of the much-hyped big promise of AI. But do read his essay.