For example, I don’t think it would be unethical to form a new type of injunctive relief or to expand the availability of injunctive relief in order to nullify unlawful statutes that are designed to avoid judicial review (e.g., the S.B. 8 case before Roe was overturned).
It admittedly gets blurred sometimes, but I think there’s a difference between inventing a new remedy that affords relief against a policy you disagree with (assuming you also think it’s unlawful), and inventing a new doctrine in order to hold that the policy you disagree with is unlawful.
Most striking to me about these memos is the radically different assessment of the harm imposed by the president not being able to pursue his initiatives. Over the last 15 mos., that harm has in numerous cases been treated as almost per se serious and irreparable. Here, it gets no analysis at all.
1. What is there to investigate? Even assuming the truth of the allegations, there is nothing improper.
2. There is no legal basis for this supposedly “independent” investigation. Only the Judicial Conduct Commission is authorized to do these investigations under the Utah Constitution.
I cannot begin to explain how angry I am that Justice Hagen is being dragged through the mud like this. Nothing but meritless allegations that have already been investigated and dismissed. But her jilted ex-husband and disgruntled politicians are using them to try and destroy her career.
Among a mountain of bad-faith factual claims and frivolous constitutional arguments, Eastman's ultimate plan was for VP Pence (or Sen. Grassley) to *knowingly violate the Electoral Count Act* and let SCOTUS block any subsequent lawsuits on political question grounds. Just shit from start to finish.
Fatling (noun): a young animal fattened for slaughter.
I hereby lodge a complaint with the @nytimes.com “Spelling Bee” department based on its erroneous contention that “fatling” is not a word.
Genuinely funny that Sonia Sotomayor issued a public apology today for her mild criticism of a conservative colleague on a specific, substantive issue, and then a few hours later Clarence Thomas picked up a mic and was like ALL LIBERALS ARE AMERICA-HATING COWARDS
I would argue Dune is very much about race, albeit not Blackness.
![The Court was led to observe that “in view of the current state of international law and of the elements of fact at its disposal, [it] cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake”. The Court added, lastly, that there was an obligation to pursue in good faith and to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:aeh25pysb2rcvipzfijs72gh/bafkreihx4xc4whfx2ouq7nnwcdj5uqsv3ysksdf5pahaagni7p3fadxgru)
The Court was led to observe that “in view of the current state of international law and of the elements of fact at its disposal, [it] cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake”. The Court added, lastly, that there was an obligation to pursue in good faith and to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.
That was the conclusion reached by the International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion on the matter. That said, the ICJ has only limited, voluntary jurisdiction over the United States.
I have a hard time seeing how the use of nuclear weapons isn’t a per se war crime given their massive destructive capabilities and inability to distinguish between military and civilian targets.
But even assuming there is a permissible use, it could only be in response to an existential threat.
Was going to suggest Dick Howard at UVA as a possibility—he started teaching in 1964. But then I remembered that he retired in 2024. Sixty years ain’t bad, though!
This is better than my reasoning: “‘case law’ looks dumb and you’re dumb for preferring it.”
As such, I will be using it in future debates on the subject.
caselaw > case law
Policy aside, if I made enough to be affected by a 10% tax on earnings in excess of $1M to fund public services, I can’t fathom being mad about it.
Unless I was just wildly financially irresponsible, there is no way it could materially affect my lifestyle.
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...
Do you have any interest in joining the academy? Based on your writing, I think you’d be great at breaking things down for law students.
It’s honestly my dream job, but unfortunately not feasible for me (at least for the moment).
Holy hell I never thought I’d see a MacGruber played with a straight face.
A friend has just accused me of category fraud for using A Knight’s Tale as my comedy pick and I’ve never been so offended in my life.
“At least seven prominent law professors.”
As I suggested on Monday, this is just like Justice Gorsuch’s “battle of law reviews.” It’s not about the frickin’ scoreboard:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/219-drunks...
Ilan Wurman @ilan_wurman 🚨🚨🚨Columbia law professor Philip Hamburger just dropped an essay arguing that Trump is right about birthright citizenship. That now makes at least seven prominent law professors arguing to varying degrees that Trump’s EO is constitutional. Read about this development here: https://open.substack.com/pub/rationallybased/p/philip-hamburger-joins-the-birthright?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
SEVEN whole law professors?!
Here I was thinking that what mattered was every single judge who has ruled on the issue, 125+ years of accepted understanding of the 14th, and centuries of common law on the contours of jus soli. But if Ilan Wurman's side has SEVEN law professors, man, WOW. It's over.
This and the quotes have reminded me of a lot of movies that I really need to watch, particularly:
-Amélie
-Brokeback Mountain
-The Lives of Others
-Michael Clayton
Nothing shook my faith in movie critics like growing up to discover that A Knight’s Tale is “rotten” on RT. A perfect film!
Drama: There Will Be Blood
Action/Adventure: Gladiator
Horror: [REC]
Comedy: A Knight’s Tale
Romance: Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Oscar Winner: No Country for Old Men
This was harder than I expected.
A+ headline.
This Reddit post is formatted like a joke but it’s actually a very dry recitation - at times, direct quotes - of America’s public war strategy over the last month. This can’t go on. This is deranged. Impeach and imprison.
I'm a bit of a broken record on this, but usurping the power of the purse isn't just one constitutional violation among all the many others. It is, uniquely and singularly, the death of constitutional government altogether. Game over, end of story, you now live in an autocracy.
Donald Trump Truth Social post: Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Happy Easter
I never use CoCounsel, but I’ve found Westlaw AI to be quite handy, although not perfect. I’ve had it mistake a party’s rejected argument for a holding before, but I don’t think I’ve ever run into entirely fake quotations.
Scary stuff! And that’s why I don’t use AI for drafting.