Doesn't this cut the other way? If the Justices are operating outside of political pressure because they have life time appointments, release of their memos shouldn't affect them. That's a reason for greater transparency, not less.

I personally think disbarment is a relatively small consequence for lending your professional license to a political and legal project trying to overturn the results of free and fair elections.

A small cohort of ("prominent"?) law professors are trying to portray John Eastman as some kind of innocent victim of viewpoint discrimination, and his disbarment as some kind of assault on the First Amendment.

That's complete and utter bollocks. As usual, @gabrielmalor.bsky.social brings receipts:

The Inside Story of Five Days That Remade the Supreme Court

Can we retire the “Roberts is an institutionalist” line now?

www.nytimes.com/2026/04/18/u...

I really don’t either.

Y I K E S

Transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination. Discrimination based on sex is expressly prohibited under Montana’s unique Nondiscrimination Clause––“[n]either the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate on account of . . . sex . . . .” Thus, Article II, Section 4 is unequivocal in its intolerance for discrimination based on sex. Because sex discrimination involves a fundamental right under Article II, the appropriate level of judicial review is strict scrutiny. Snetsinger, ¶ 17. ¶28 Being transgender is also a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause of Article II, Section 4,––“[n]o person shall be denied equal protection of the law.”

MONTANA SUPREME COURT: “Transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination,” and is subject to strict scrutiny under the Montana Constitution.

Dobbs contains multitudes: (1) “we cannot allow our decisions to be affected by … concern about the public’s reaction to our work," yet (2) “it is important for the public to perceive that our decisions are based on principle."

I have no words anymore. His story is incredibly compelling, so I’ll link his book and encourage you to read it: a.co/d/03dEeZ0g

“Seven prominent legal scholars”

Law students — Are you looking for a state court clerkship but don’t know where to start?

We created a free resource that compiles opportunities from over 80 justices across 25 states, along with information on application deadlines, requirements, and much more.

Check it out:

I try to! 😅 But writer and editor me would like to get to a world where my pieces can be shorter.

Everyone take a federal Indian law class so my articles can be shorter. Thank you!

Let me just say: I don’t want my articles to be as long as they are either!

But when your area is not well known (like Indian law) it takes a lot of writing just to orient the reader to the field before even reaching the argument.

For your citing purposes, U.S. law incorporation of the prohibition against genocide: 18 U.S.C § 1091; U.S. law incorporation of the prohibition against wantonly destroying infrastructure 18 U.S.C § 2441 which incorporates by reference Geneva Convention IV art. 147.

For those who might be celebrating the imminent departure of AG Pam Bondi (who has been absolutely awful ), look at why Trump is likely firing her and recognize that whoever replaces her is likely to be more aggressive in weaponizing DOJ against Trump's enemies.

Abuser Politics: Christian Male Supremacists Want Women to Shut Up The desire for quiet women—really for silent women—in every public forum is neither about adherence to Biblical truth nor the revelation of natural law.

Opted for this read instead of the NYT: www.liberalcurrents.com/abuser-polit...

Kidding, but also YIKES.

Small tabby cat sitting by the window with the Madison, Wisconsin skyline - including WI capitol building - behind her. She has a pink stuffed axolotl next to her.

My page needs a palette cleaner.

Small regional airports are under appreciated.

@evanbernick.bsky.social @anthonymkreis.bsky.social

There, Mr. McGill attempted to argue that Congress’ authority in Indian Affairs is in part limited to Indian Lands and that off-reservation Indians were behind that power. That was Justice Sotomayor’s response. The court didn’t bite.

Justice Sotomayor recognized a “legion of cases…where Congress has gone off of Indian lands, had nothing to do with sovereignty… nothing to do with trade…but with intercourse, with the relationships with Indians whether on or off reservations.” Haaland v. Brackeen, Oral Argument at 14-25.

The strict interpretation of federal Indian law principles based on geography is relatively new and one that the court embraces to limit Tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians, but not as a principle limiting the federal government’s authority in Indian Affairs to the exclusion of the several states.

who were simply not part of the state polities. The fourteenth Amendment would later reprise this language, confirming both the enduring sovereignty of Tribes and the bedrock principle that Indian status is a ‘political rather than racial’ classification.”)

On Tribes & the 14th Amendment, Brackeen v. Haaland, 599 U.S. 255 (2023)(Gorsuch, J. concurring)(“The Constitution exempts from the apportionment calculus ‘Indians not taxed.’ This formula ratified the legal treatment of tribal Indians even within the States as separate and sovereign peoples,…