Disagree. Public meetings & public comments at the level of implementation aren’t solely a hack for our broken system. Our system broke down precisely bc our representative assembly unconstitutionally abandoned them Elections are necessary for democratic governance but they are not alone sufficient

You will never get the commentariat to care about this even a hundredth as much as they cared as that time a college girl wrote an OpEd about rape culture in the campus newspaper in 2018.

“The question of whether or not his sacrifice, his risk of prosecution, his potential forfeiture of the benefits of an entire [over 20] year career in the military is worth it is whether you follow through with the pressure that is needed on Congress to impeach, convict and remove[.]”

If you aren't familiar with shadow docket orders, this means Kavanaugh is the only one who said he would have protected the reporter while she argues that the First Amendment should protect a reporter against revealing sources.

The Constitution remains important because no one with power—even the people who disregard it—is (yet) willing to say it is not important to follow. It’s helpful to think about principles of international law here, because that’s an area where what the law says and how states behave often diverge.

What I mean is that somebody could reject legislative supremacy and work to adopt a different theory of the case under the frame I write about. He clearly doesn’t like legislative supremacy. What his deal on constitutional politics?

I think this piece misunderstands what @beaubaumann.bsky.social called for—& thus falls into the problem Baumann is concerned with: “technocratic reform without an institutional anchor.” (Sandhu left, Baumann right). Baumann called for a claim to authority & a narrative of historical legitimacy… 1/

republicans are having their secret police execute americans in broad daylight and letting the murderer walk free. theyre sending innocent people to foreign gulags. they want to denaturalize millions and rip them out of their homes and send them to slave labor camps

More seriously, Adams put his finger on something vitally important to the history of the Revolution in this letter: the networks of communication and debate that created an insurgent political community in the mainland colonies.

Hey, @mayor.nyc.gov @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social, they shouldn't be allowed to do this to residents while the billboards in Times Square stay lit up 24/7

🚨 HUGE ongoing surge of ICE arrests, with ICE directing 80% of all officers to go out into the field and round people up, aiming to hit 2,000 arrests a day; which would be more than during the Minneapolis surge. This may be why the nun in Texas got briefly picked up. www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/u...

This is exactly how Chris Rufo would define these terms. He's wrong. Propaganda is persuasion without consent.

Meanwhile, they didn't turn off the lights in Times Square

FYI: Rusk says the federal government can’t strip you of your citizenship unless you consent.

well I guess I should put this in the article I'm writing for tomorrow that I had tentatively titled 'The Trans Kids Sports Case Is Not About Sports'

The use of the word “eliminate” in this context should really freak out more than just those of us he’s seeking to remove, to be honest. This should be a red flag so big that it’s visible from space.

interesting that socialism is now a label on these polls

“Congress, under the Bill of Rights, is required to accord the right of petition to any citizen. If a petitioner states and supports a valid ground for hearing or relief, manifestly he should be entitled to hearing or relief.” -Senate Judiciary Committee, 1946 babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hv...

Got frustrated striking out at pitching opeds to media orgs and couldn't have done this piece within their word count constraints anyway. So now you Blueskis get to read it. Friend told me my superpower is explaining complex and dry law and legal history clearly. I try. You can be the judge. Thx.

We can’t just fight over who gets the keys to the Death Star.

It is very left/radical coded. I never thought saying that Congress is the primary institutional actor of our government is radical, but very often, I get treated like I am some kind of Communist from 1950s. This is why the Glorious Revolution is still relevant, I guess.

so many people have basically memed themselves into a sort of left-Vermuele presidency where you harness the imperial presidency for the "left" instead of, you know, re-empowering congress

Underlying unitary executive theory but really everything wrong about America's hyper-presidentialism is we act like the president has some unique sacred mandate as the voice of the people, to which Congress is at best a sideshow rather than our actual directly elected representatives.

“the casting of of a single vote for an official…is too blunt an instrument to constitute considered approval of all manner of decision…Yet the [UET] account of representation…runs through presidential elections alone.” Further, popular rights of representation extend beyond elections entirely.

the use of “performative” as an insult here is why these people are losing their primaries. yes, voters want you to perform their anger and disgust! they want representatives to represent their symbolic interests! the idea that good representation is necessarily quiet and unobtrusive is wrong!

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community.” With this line, which Roberts links to English tradition, the Chief Justice quietly denies our *own* political tradition: the Declaration of Independence. Rights flow from our our humanity.

TBH, I think Steve is giving the Court too much credit here. It's not at all clear to me that they've shown up with a fire extinguisher as opposed to, say, a bag of marshmallows and some hot dogs.

3/ What is the implication? Just that--consistent with the literature on judicial self-aggrandizement--Roberts understands whatever (minimal) constraints on the presidency there are to be those imposed by the Court alone.

On a basic fundamental level this is all so stupid, but it works because people understand it’s about defining who is and isn’t actually eligible to be in the electorate.

2027: In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court rules that the Civil War was wrongly decided.

So cite the ruling that relies on a claim that “only the holdings of this Court clearly establish federal law.” None of these unexplained orders have any effect on cases other than the ones in which they originated. District courts should “work to rule.” www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

I really hate this new coinage, which to my mind serves to legitimize the malignant fiction that there’s some kind of a hierarchy of American citizenship.

“…She campaigned on a message of affordability, Medicare for All, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and supporting universal childcare.”

The fact that Prof. Kreis now needs to remind people of this—including people who support the idea of birthright citizenship—is itself evidence of how catastrophically far the MAGA movement has taken this cause in *a single year.*

The number alone should land him in prison, without any consideration to how it was gained. It should be illegal to vastly increase your wealth while holding public office. Any capital gains ought to enter an inaccessible public trust to be used on public good. www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/u...

Same deal with gerrymandering, like, you don't want to do it, you don't want both sides to battle over it, but if you rule it out and unilaterally disarm you just lose

extremely rich for Kavanaugh and the other Republican justices to bellyache about campaign finance laws consigning political parties to "second-tier status" oh is the Court worried about creating tiers of citizenship? since when? surely this is news to...everyone ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/nrsc-...

now the dnc is going to pour tens of millions of dollars into defending a fucking nazi and they're probably going to lose. congratulations guys. here's your fell for it again award by the guys who sell you ad space.

Today was the day the Supreme Court became President.

the clear takeaway from the 100-plus pages of dissents in Trump v. Barbara is that these mfers aren't going to stop coming for birthright citizenship their morally illiterate misread of the 14th Amendment will motivate the conservative legal movement for years ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/birth...

it's kind of fascinating how these are treated as equally bad

Contrary to what some people still insist on saying, this is in fact meaningfully different from what her position was just one year ago where she tried to split the baby on the idea of "offensive" v "defensive". I happen to think this is a great evolution and this amendment adds credibility to it.

Do people who've never lived in Washington have a sense of how titanic a labor it is to get the Mall this empty, especially near the Fourth of July? Normally the monuments and Smithsonian would look _carpeted_ with tourists right now. Even 'Gigli' didn't chase people off like this.

here is what i think: we're not consumers or spectators, we are participants with agency. you should not hope that democrats will do anything. you must work to force them to do the right thing. the odds are long, but we are far from the first americans to face long odds. we will win.

This seems to me the headline. I happen to think there’s a lot to be said for the legitimacy of incremental constitutional change through genuine movement-building over decades. This is something else entirely. Unworthy of a constitutional democracy.

you know, when someone says something like "these are the things that need to be done to avert disaster" and your response is "you think democrats will do that?!?" all you're telling me is that you think politics is a spectator sport

The truth is that it has just begun. As sharper legal minds have noted, it took them DECADES to build to overturning Roe. They almost got there on birthright citizenship on a half-assed first shot. The question isn't what they're going to do on birthright...it's how much further will they go.

This is the message I want my Senators to be sending. Yes, we're glad that they didn't completely set every part of the Constitution on fire all at once, but it's still on fire and we need to take action to rein in the Court.

If lawyers don't like this, & want SCOTUS to remain the purview only of lawyers, then lawyers need to start policing their own academic discipline & pipeline to the judiciary, & they need to actually start following the law & not ignoring data/evidence/history/statistics/reality once on the bench.