Watch how swiftly fake quotes get attributed to “S. Drimmer” now.
Thing is, this is exactly what ChatGPT was designed to do. Namely, jackhammer the grounds of truth beneath our feet. Whether the product is “good” or not is irrelevant. Its purpose is to remove people from acts of discernment.
But IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO ACCEPT THAT, they need to believe that the Court is indeed deciding cases honestly, according to law. That all that could have been done to give the losing side a fair hearing, given the basic conditions of pluralism, has in fact been done
I share Steve’s concerns. An observation:
The Court’s immense power, such as it is, is contingent upon its at least plausibly appearing to do law. This may seem like an academic debate, but it’s literally over whether the Court is doing law or something else. That matters.
The key here is how utterly impoverished the discussion was. There was no real debate and no in-person meeting to hash out differences of opinion; just a brief exchange of remarkably short memos over five days (two of which were a weekend). I’ve suggested before that folks would be floored to see just how little analysis and deliberation go into rulings like this that produce massive real-world effects; here, for once, is pretty compelling direct evidence in support of that speculation—and a pretty powerful rejoinder to those who have insisted that the Court’s internal debates in these cases are rigorous and deeply substantive. Whatever else this was, it wasn’t that.
Vladeck is exactly right.
Also, I’ve suggested before that it’s outrageous for the Court to nuke carefully reasoned lower court rulings so casually.
Federal judges ought be enraged to see this cavalier approach confirmed.
Searing opinion from a federal judge on Long Island, who describes "police state"-like tactics by ICE to arrest peopleand draw up after-the-fact warrants.
He says DOJ is damaging its credibility with the courts by trying to shield ICE from scrutiny. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Ah. A fresh set of war crimes in the morning.
We democratically set policy and John Roberts decided that the People were wrong and the voters were wrong and the entire system of ordered law we have was wrong BECAUSE IT WOULD HURT OIL COMPANIES.
And Elena Kagan, RBG, & Sonia Sotomayor just sat on that information for the entire Decade of Trump.
John Roberts just decided one day in 2016 that he personally wanted to protect the electric power generation and delivery industry from the entire Congress and the President - who passed this law entirely above-board and constitutionally.
Just, “I, John Roberts, get to decide all US policy.”
the president of the united states is personally looting the treasury to the tune of literally billions of dollars and that he is not being immediately removed from office and tried for high crimes against this country is a devastating indictment of every part of our political system
We are so far beyond even Teapot Dome levels of "government captured by private industry" in this country, and Democrats genuinely seem to believe their unpopularity is driven by being too nice to trans people, instead of being driven by their screamingly obvious hypocrisy about this.
The desperate campaign to push AI down our throats is just what Nestlé did with baby formula, or Monsanto with patended seeds.
Manufactured Intermediation—inserting a corporate tollbooth into a process that used to be self-sustaining, using a low initial barrier to entry to destroy the alternative.
I’ve changed my mind about a lot of things, but talked about why I think law schools need to teach people how to make law and not just litigate under it.
Democrats planning to run in November’s midterm elections have been advised not to antagonise pro-AI campaign groups that have amassed more than $300mn to fight for the industry’s priorities. The warnings by top party consultants, corroborated by people close to four different campaigns and party strategists speaking on the condition of anonymity, come despite internal polling for Democrats showing widespread public support for tougher AI rules.
They're calling it the best democracy ever.
www.ft.com/content/7529...
KBJ continuing her mission to recenter Congress rather than the Court…by sustaining her tariffs case attack on Scalia’s anti-legislative history legacy and pulling a different Chief Justice Marshall quote that more accurately than Marbury describes how he actually understood the judiciary’s duty:
Hungary lesson: Don’t debate Trump on policy. Name the corruption—and threat to democracy. Connect it to people’s lives. $3,800/household from tariffs. $2.5B gutted from the CDC. Billions in Trump family crypto profits while your grocery bill climbs and your kid’s school loses funding.
Thank you, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty: “There is no such thing as absolute immunity for federal agents in the state of Minnesota or any other state.” Absolutely right. @fsfp.bsky.social
lol man no one (US population at large nor the average junior enlisted member) are mentally ready for what a real war is gonna look like
This is the dems’ counter to this:
This chart isn’t accurate. It presents impeachment resolutions as inevitably going to the Judiciary committee. This path is common, but not required. Members can—and have—forced floor votes on their articles. For example, Rep Green’s resolution last December. clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025322
Even "failed" impeachments matter:
✅ Publicly listing Trump's many crimes;
✅ Forcing members of Congress who are complicit to own their part in his criminality and corruption publicly in the Congressional record (i.e., forever);
✅ Rallying voters to believe in democracy.
bsky.app/profile/samh...
Elements of Treason (levying war):
a) an assemblage, b) resisting any law or interfering w/the course of a govt proceeding,* c) by force or intimidation, d) for a public purpose.
It isn’t difficult to categorize ICE. What’s hard is accepting that POTUS is openly at war against the United States.
They can force floor votes on impeachment, and Johnson’s recourse is to adjourn. Ultimately, they need to more forcefully confront the legitimacy of a House Speaker who uses his power to functionally abolish the legislature. bsky.app/profile/samh...
And yes, you are duty-bound to this course regardless whether those votes may succeed. You can’t defend the Constitution by standing by as it fails. There may be other political ground to fight on, but not if you hold to your oath. And you only hold your office while you do. bsky.app/profile/samh...
Moreover, if you want to scream at max volume how grave the threat is, you point out your relentless motions for impeachment aren’t required by your oath of office *compels* you to seek the obvious remedy to a tyrannical POTUS. The Constitution is failing; supporting it req’s reps seek impeachment.
If the goal is to convey the peril of this moment, you pull the lever in *your* hand. If you think it’s an existential threat, you don’t say to Rubio, Hegseth, Mullin, “no no, after *you* sir.” When you do, you show instead that you’re comfortable w/the fate of the Republic resting in others’ hands.
Is there any other institution in the world where we use their members kidnapping someone as a reason to *avoid* reining them in?
Wow The Somebody Else’s Problem Act already has 50 cosponsors
