Learning to Act Properly: Predicting and Explaining Affordances from Images

We address the problem of affordance reasoning in diverse scenes that appear in the real world. Affordances relate the agent's actions to their effects when taken on the surrounding objects. In our work, we take the egocentric view of the scene, and aim to reason about action-object affordances that respect both the physical world as well as the social norms imposed by the society. We also aim to teach artificial agents why some actions should not be taken in certain situations, and what would likely happen if these actions would be taken. We collect a new dataset that builds upon ADE20k, referred to as ADE-Affordance, which contains annotations enabling such rich visual reasoning. We propose a model that exploits Graph Neural Networks to propagate contextual information from the scene in order to perform detailed affordance reasoning about each object. Our model is showcased through various ablation studies, pointing to successes and challenges in this complex task

The Ghost in the Courtroom: When Opinions Are Adopted Verbatim from Prosecutors

Judicial opinions captivate the legal community, serving as a hub for teaching new lawyers and developing the law. These opinions also provide a method for the justice system to communicate with the people it serves—both the parties to the cases and the public. This communication should be well-reasoned and developed from a neutral standpoint. However, this ideal is being seriously threatened by ghostwriting, the practice of allowing a party to write the opinion. This is particularly troubling in criminal cases, where the very lawyers charged with prosecuting defendants are writing the opinions against them. This Note proposes that opinions written by prosecutors should be subject to de novo appellate review. Additionally, states should pass legislation and revise ethics rules to require that judges critically review a proposed opinion, refrain from adopting it verbatim, give the opposing party an opportunity to reply, and write an original legal analysis section. Change is necessary to ensure that opinions are not just a recitation of a prosecutor’s argument, but a thoughtful product of an impartial judge. Left unchecked, ghostwriting will destroy the value of opinions and undermine the integrity of adjudication

The Ghost in the Courtroom: When Opinions Are Adopted Verbatim from Prosecutors

Judicial opinions captivate the legal community, serving as a hub for teaching new lawyers and developing the law. These opinions also provide a method for the justice system to communicate with the people it serves—both the parties to the cases and the public. This communication should be well-reasoned and developed from a neutral standpoint. However, this ideal is being seriously threatened by ghostwriting, the practice of allowing a party to write the opinion. This is particularly troubling in criminal cases, where the very lawyers charged with prosecuting defendants are writing the opinions against them. This Note proposes that opinions written by prosecutors should be subject to de novo appellate review. Additionally, states should pass legislation and revise ethics rules to require that judges critically review a proposed opinion, refrain from adopting it verbatim, give the opposing party an opportunity to reply, and write an original legal analysis section. Change is necessary to ensure that opinions are not just a recitation of a prosecutor’s argument, but a thoughtful product of an impartial judge. Left unchecked, ghostwriting will destroy the value of opinions and undermine the integrity of adjudication

Subtraction involving negative numbers: Connecting to whole number reasoning

In this article, we explore how students attempt to bridge from their whole number reasoning to integer reasoning as they solve subtraction problems involving negative numbers. Based on interviews with students ranging from first graders to preservice teachers, we identify two overarching strategies: making connections to known problem types and leveraging conceptions of subtraction. Their initial connections suggest that rather than identifying the best instructional models to teach integer concepts, we should focus on identifying integer instructional models that build on the potentially productive connections that students’ already make; we propose an example of one such form of instruction

Differentiating Legislative from Nonlegislative Rules: An Empirical and Qualitative Analysis

The elusive distinction between legislative rules and nonlegislative rules has frustrated courts, motivated voluminous scholarly debate, and ushered in a flood of litigation against administrative agencies. In the absence of U.S. Supreme Court guidance on the proper demarcating line, circuit courts have adopted various tests to ascertain a rule’s proper classification. This Note analyzes all 241 cases in which a circuit court has used one or more of the enunciated tests to differentiate legislative from nonlegislative rules. These opinions come from every one of the thirteen circuits and span the period of the early 1950s through 2018. This Note identifies six different tests that courts have employed in this effort and offers a qualitative and empirical analysis of each. The qualitative analysis explains the underlying premise of the tests, articulates their merits and shortcomings, and considers how courts have applied them to particular disputes. The empirical portion of this Note uses regression analysis to ascertain how using or rejecting one or more of the tests affects a court’s determination of whether the rule is legislative or nonlegislative. This Note classifies the different tests into two categories: public-focused tests and agency-focused tests. These two categories are defined by a principle that permeates administrative law jurisprudence: achieving a proper balance between efficient agency rulemaking and maintaining a proper check against unconstrained agency action. These two categories thus defined, this Note proposes a balanced approach that incorporates elements of both categories to identify and refine the proper test

Historical Gloss, Constitutional Convention, and the Judicial Separation of Powers

Scholars have increasingly focused on the relevance of post-Founding historical practice to discern the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch, and the Supreme Court has recently endorsed the relevance of such practice. Much less attention has been paid, however, to the relevance of historical practice to discerning the separation of powers between the political branches and the federal judiciary — what this Article calls the “judicial separation of powers.” As the Article explains, there are two ways that historical practice might be relevant to the judicial separation of powers. First, such practice might be invoked as an appeal to “historical gloss”— a claim that the practice informs the content of constitutional law. Second, historical practice might be invoked to support what Commonwealth theorists have termed “constitutional conventions.” To illustrate how both gloss and conventions enrich our understanding of the judicial separation of powers, the Article considers the authority of Congress to “pack” the Supreme Court, and the authority of Congress to “strip” the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. This Article shows that, although the defeat of Franklin Roosevelt’s Court-packing plan in 1937 has been studied almost exclusively from a political perspective, many criticisms of the plan involved claims about historical gloss; other criticisms involved appeals to non-legal but obligatory constitutional conventions; and still others blurred the line between those two categories or shifted back and forth between them. Strikingly similar themes emerge in debates in Congress in 1957-58, and within the Justice Department in the early 1980s, over the authority of Congress to prevent the Court from deciding constitutional issues by restricting its appellate jurisdiction. The Article also shows, based on internal executive branch documents that have not previously been discovered or discussed in the literature, how Chief Justice John Roberts, while working in the Justice Department and debating Office of Legal Counsel head Theodore Olson, failed to persuade Attorney General William French Smith that Congress has broad authority to strip the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The Article then reflects on the implications of gloss and conventions for the judicial separation of powers more generally