Indeed, it could very well be that, because of changes in the political parties, the selfsame faculty members identified quite differently in 2014 than they did in 1989.

Yes, better that he stays in 2026. Even better if he's impeached in 2029.

It is quite disturbing that there is a justice on the Supreme Court whose objective in being there is to "make [liberals'] lives miserable."

DOGE was probably the most anti-conservative political development in 21st-century US history.

Great points in this thread. I would go even further. The right-wing attack on higher ed is not about increasing exposure to the conservative intellectual tradition, because that tradition (people like Burke and Oakeshott) has basically nothing in common with contemporary right-wing politics.

The other problem is that the conservative intellectual tradition—people like Oakeshott, say—has basically nothing in common with actually existing conservative politics.

Reuters says Tisza has at least 135 seats: 133 is the constitutional supermajority!

Live by highly disproportional electoral systems (which Orbán made even more disproportional with the extra compensation votes awarded to winners), die by highly disproportional electoral systems.

Orban called Magyar to congratulate Magyar - and admitted defeat to his supporters. It's over. Peter Magyar and his Tisza Party wins with such an overwhelming victory that he has two-thirds of the seats in the parliament and can undo Orban's autocratic legalism!

These are horrific criminal civil-rights violations that, god willing, will be prosecuted by the U.S Department of Justice ca. 2029.

Sounds very well-constructed! I guess I am wondering about coverage of issues like birthright citizenship that are important indicators of the functioning of the judiciary but that may seem more peripheral with respect to "doctrine."

Yes, certainly many available facts, but sometimes very hard to predict the outcomes.

How did you manage the tension between bar exam coverage and current significance?

Is it fun to teach 1L con law these days?

Boston Globe mock front page from April 9, 2016. Date says April 9, 2017, with giant headline “DEPORTATIONS TO BEGIN” and “Markets sink as trade war looms.”

Ten years ago today, in April 2016, the Boston Globe printed a satirical front page imagining a future Trump administration. The page was called "alarmist," "hyperbolic," "dystopian." But we’ve put up with so much since then it now looks like . . . a slow Thursday?

I > II > III

I keep trying to write something about *waves hands at everything* and have to delete the whole thing each time I get to the end. This isn't 5D chess. It isn't even 2D chess. He sees that everything is worse and is just...eating the chess pieces. And while countless people die.

Has anyone studied the psychic toll of years spent waking up to the unhinged rantings of a vicious madman who could kill us all — and then going about one’s day per usual?

I agree. So then I suppose the significance of this kind of methodological argument is in penetrating the ideology that legitimates the current institutional settlement.

Judicial review plus originalism entails the subordination of democratic majorities to the dead hand of the past. But isn't it also the case that judicial review without originalism entails the subordination of democratic majorities to a cadre of elites? I'm not sure that is presumptively better.

Constitutional lawyer here. I don't think it would violate the Constitution for the VP/Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, but the intended constitutional remedy for this behavior is impeachment & removal. The fact that that remedy is politically impossible is a scandal and a crisis.

Omg was Pam Bondi actually keeping him from having Stephen Miller write the briefs? 😂

Side note to this conversation from earlier: Andrew Johnson was never President!

papers.ssrn.com/abstract=508...

Donald Trump Isn't Sounding Like Himself And that's terrifying

Krugman: Trump is "aware that he has basically led America into an epic strategic defeat.... [I]t sounds like he’s unable to accept it and that he is going to try and do something truly awful in an attempt to somehow redeem himself and the situation.... I'm scared."

Incidentally another respect in which the original design was far less unitary than the revisionist story.

Mostly very positive developments, although the 12A also interestingly contributes to the presidentialization of politics. Before the 12A, the VP would be a competitor to the president. The 12A eliminates a competitor and simultaneously gives the president more power over the legislative process.

The 2025-26 Congress definitely seems to be a historical outlier in a bad way!

I think Grant is the president who gets the most unfairly harsh verdict. Maybe the most strongly committed to civil rights of any president.

I wonder if that is connected to the psychological role that the presidency has come to play more broadly in our political culture.

Yes, I think Hamilton (the musical) contributed to unfairly skewed views of the politics of that period.

Yes, and it's also hard to measure value above replacement. In FDR's case, Congress was doing great things. I think Lincoln probably had high value above replacement, but then Andrew Johnson immediately canceled out a lot of that.

Washington's greatness consists mostly in rejecting that idea!