It is ironic that the folks who complained that tearing down statutes and renaming military bases constituted the destruction of history are either silent about actual book purges, or are silently cheering them on.
(carefully pouring a drop of wine back into the glass) I am announcing a 90 day pause on the FROGS, but the LOCUSTS will remain in place
They need good news, and fast. I'm guessing we'll see some sort of deal (or just the announcement that they have a deal) with a small country very soon, just to prove they have a plan.
The adminstration is going to need good news, and fast. They can't do the usual "flood the zone" when every market is crashing. I'm guessing they are desperately working on a deal with some country, any country, to show they have a plan. The question is, which will be first?
As heartening as it is to see the nationwide protests, perhaps even more notable is the absence of (more than nominal) counterprotests. Advanced authoritarians would have organized to shut the protests down. The fact they haven't reveals their weakness, and provides hope for the future.
Augustus also studiously avoided the appearance of breaking from norms and traditions, rather than gleefully flaunting them.
Interesting. And from my alma mater (I may be biased a bit, I had Richard Epstein for property).
Why would you expect it to be more lopsided now? Is it possible that with a SupCt conservative majority and Trump appointees on the bench, more con judges will find their way into academia?
Is it true that there is a paucity of conservative and libertarian faculty in American law schools? I would've thought some schools to be more on the progressive side while others are more conservative. How many law professors are members of the Federalist Society, for example?
I have resurrected my old blog to try to answer a question that has baffled me: why does this administration appear to be committing political self-immolation?
I may have an answer. Check out my post and see if you think I'm on to something.
www.musingsofaradicalmoderate.com/blog/the-pai...
Another ringing endorsement of the Trump administration's actions from . . . uh . . . Iran?
www.columbian.com/news/2025/fe...
In dark times, look for the helpers. There are people fighting the good fight. You are not alone.
I just don't see how anyone who claims to be a conservative can be OK with this. You don't like USAID or how or what it does, fine; then work through Congress and pass legislation.
But executive fiat to destroy an agency? It's illegal, unconstitutional overreach.
www.pbs.org/newshour/pol...
Not a surprise. It's typical Trump negotiations: threaten, demand concessions, get something (no matter how little), claim victory, and move on.
The problem is that this tactic destroys both trust and good faith. And kills friendships. Terrible for US in the long run.
www.cnbc.com/2025/02/03/t...
For something a little different, the view from the front of our hotel last night in Tromso, Norway. First time ever seeing the aurora borealis!
"They crossed the bridge and wound slowly up the long steep paths that led out of the cloven vale of Rivendell, and they came at length to the high moor where the wind hissed through the heather. Then with one glance at the Last Homely House twinkling below them they strode away far into the night."
Gotta love Vsauce!
Heck, in the 17th Century, England tried and executed their king for, among other things, using his office for personal gain instead of the public good. Our Supreme Court has, instead, adopted the arguments of the (losing) defendant (“the king can do no wrong”).
Except with respect to the presidency, where they seem to take guidance from the rights of the English monarchy pre-Magna Carta.
Documents like these help us see past the dusty historical record and recognize the long-ago lives of real people. Though in many ways their culture is alien to us, through it all we can still see our common humanity. Very cool.
Can't wait!
I would have absolutely read the syllabus. I just might not have been the first. (And yes, I was a UofC law student.)
Truly bizarre. They could just pass the CR, wait until March, and then impose whatever terms they want. Including undoing whatever they hate in this CR.
The best hope for democracy right now seems to be the sheer inability of the Republican party to actually govern.
Why the stock market always seems surprised by this kind of stuff is beyond me.
I suspect the Fed was going to be cautious anyway, with inflation still pretty sticky. But with monetary and trade policy so uncertain, a go-slow approach really was the Fed's only option. It's hard to see a rebounding rally until we get some clarity after the new administration takes over.
"[O]ur poll suggests that Democrats ran the wrong campaign. Whereas they ran a 'values campaign,' focused on a government Americans could trust, what voters really wanted was an effective government, and on that, they preferred Donald Trump."
Surprise!
thehill.com/opinion/camp...
The problem is that we have all concluded that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality (though that isn't required by the Constitution), so the only limit to their discretion is the need to get five votes.
So your concern isn't vague laws (Congress intentionally punting to the courts), but rather the judiciary using various doctrines (such as Major Questions) to effectively legislate from the bench?
That has certainly been a trend on the SC, using a screen of "originalism" to mask policy preferences.
It would be similar to SEC v Jarkasy, when earlier this year the US Supreme Court struck down the SEC's administrative courts as unconstitutional.
So any challenge would have to come from someone affected by the law.
Well, first you'd have to have a law that gave too much discretion to judges. Then it would have to come up in litigation. Maybe following a regulatory enforcement action. Then the defendant would be able to argue the law is unconstitutional.
The other limit would be the political questions doctrine, if, for example, an issue had no judicially discoverable standards for resolving it. In that case, the court would just dismiss the suit. (Baker v. Carr)