This is a dream case and outcome for a bankruptcy attorney.

He also didn't even plead specific damages. I can't see this surviving a motion to dismiss.

I don't think this ever gets to discovery.

Business Scholarship Podcast | Call for Guests Each summer, the Business Scholarship Podcast features scholars entering the upcoming law-teaching market. Episodes are recorded from May through July,

If you’re going on the law-teaching market this fall (or know folks who are) check out this Call for Guests for @busscholarship.bsky.social! www.businesslawprofessors.com/2026/04/busi...!

This is going to end with the US demanding that Pakistan cede the Kashmir region to India.

The books are good but I would support a Tolkien revival on the sole basis that people really need to understand how dumb it is to call a company Palantir

I am all for increased leaks at the Supreme Court.

I want a horror franchise rooted entirely in a sinister interpretation of Olive Garden's "When you're here, you're family."

Kurt Lash refused to answer a question from anthonymkreis.bsky.social that could be used to diagnose a concussion.

And who won the 2020 election is precisely the issue despite how much Lash wants to deflect from that and make a martyr out of Eastman.

I want to be absolutely clear:

I have chosen a side. I am against this. I am against John Eastman. I am against anyone who calls him a good man and a fine scholar. I am against anyone who defends anyone who call him a good man and a fine scholar. I will always be.

Boofing has to be the correct way to invest that.

What's the viewppoint discrimination here? That the California bar would've allowed Eastman to try to commit a coup for Democrats. The slippery slope fallacy is the chef's kiss. Lash would've defended Carl Schmitt too. These people are awfully afraid of the consequences of their own actions

And what's the viewpoint discrimination? That I only can't commit a coup because a Republican is in office. These people aren't serious.

When your friend tries to overthrow an election through a coup, it speaks poorly of you when you try to make them the victim. These guys are hacks who don't give a shit about the rule of law, as evidenced by their push to allow Trump to end birthright citizenship through an EO.

Confronting medical grifting: Fraudulent and unproven products and interventions in apheresis, transfusion and biotherapies A basic overview of medical grifting for haematologists with practical guidance in identification and tips for management.

He's the Jim Kramer of medicine.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

This idiot is a prime example of why having a lot of money leads to worse health outcomes.

It must have been something I said.

His brother-in-law is a convicted cocaine trafficker who still resides in the US. I'm guessing the Rubio's don't think the laws apply to them.

Why the South Should Have Won— by Ilan Wurman

It's an intracountry war, but that's not important.

The Civil War has been famously ignored by historians who refused to use primary sources until a partisan hack who never went to college picked up the mantle. I assume Joe Rogan was his research assistant.

I'm glad you asked.

Under the common law, someone whose birthplace was unknown would be forced to eat mushy peas. The natural-born subject would ask for more. He who was a stranger would gag.

The lack of humility and humanity to will such an idiotic argument into existence is disgusting. They all apparently lack any shame and are willing to fuck over millions to advance their careers. They're either morons, opportunists or both. But fuck them. They should be shunned from polite society.

This case demonstrates the arrogance and willingness of lawyers and law professors to pretend that they're trained historians. I have as much confidence in these fringe professors historical analysis than I would if they purported to be applying string theory.

This case should be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. There isn't a chance in Hell that this should be permitted through an executive order. The Court should summarily strike down the order on substance, which it should've done in the national injunction case.

I know I’m a broken record on this but:

A handful of law profs are engaging in an effort to convince the Supreme Court to accept a reactionary administration’s effort to redefine American citizenship and render countless children stateless.

What does Coke say about this in his opinions?

If you're not stupid, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, you're full of shit and being incredibly optimistic in trying will something into existence in order to further your career. The argument is laughable and you seem incapable of shame.

Apparently people who consistently make insanely stupid arguments don't like being called stupid.