Defining Heritage Americans: My daughter’s mother (i.e., my wife) is eligible for membership in the Colonial Dames. My grandparents came to the US in the early 1900s. Is my daughter a Heritage American? (Don’t ask about her maternal grandfather.) Why not just say “white” and have done with it?

No signed opinions in argued cases before Jan 1 this Term and in the 2022 Term. Used to get at least 1 in Dec & not infrequently a few in Dec and a few in Nov. Conditions on the Court appear to be such that JR can’t even be a good manager. Pretty clearly an effect of the shadow/emergency docket.

End-of-the-year episode of Sureme Betrayal—a conversation with David Luban about the law and morals of soldiers’ disobeying orders, getting us into questions about the tension between law and hierarchical order and tipping our toes in some jurisprudential waters: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s...

Anyone who posts something from Trump should accompany it with a quote from a Rob Reiner movie. “As you wish” & “You can’t handle the truth” are the obvious candidates, but there are many others: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

To quote Joseph Welch, speaking to Sen McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” (In fact,Welch’s statement was something of a set-up whereas Trump was disgusting all on his own.)

Endorsing a sentiment I read here (in my own words): I’m a Jew to my bones but not a very observant one, but if I could (we just moved to an apartment whose windows overlook a parking garage) I would put the fucking menorah in the window tonight.

1/ Mike Dorf has the useful term hyperopia for excessively worrying about what might hypothetically happen in the distant future: www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/12/what.... In the Slaughter argument the worry came up w/r/t the D of Ed & EPA—what about long-terms, multiple members...

I seem to recall some classic sci fi story where the eve lasted eleven months. Turned out that dawn wasn’t pretty. (Asimov or Clarke)

New Supreme Betrayal episode: a conversation about the First Amendment with Genevieve Lakier: supreme-betrayal-how-the-supreme-court-and-constitutional.simplecast.com/episodes/a-c... podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a... open.spotify.com/episode/0waO...

For those interested in sortition as a governance matter. There’s a stronger example in Belgium of binding law made by randomly selected citizens—not merely advice to legislators. www.nytimes.com/2025/11/23/w...

The title of the new episode of Supreme Betrayal says it all: supreme-betrayal-how-the-supreme-court-and-constitutional.simplecast.com/episodes/the... open.spotify.com/episode/0khs... podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s...

1/ People dumping on Scott Bessent for saying SCt doesn’t overturn signature programs: N is small b/c most presidents don’t have signature programs of the relevant type but as a descriptive matter Bessent’s in the ballpark of being right. (Obvious—only?—examples are FDR/NLRB and Obamacare.) ...

New Supreme Betrayal: Constitutionalism After Trump & multiculturalism, trans issues, religion—choose between me and Seidman on strategies: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/c... open.spotify.com/episode/0Ah0... supreme-betrayal-how-the-supreme-court-and-constitutional.simplecast.com/episodes/con...

“Exulting in Epstein Files” is today’s “Wallowing in Watergate."

Coming on Friday: a new episode of Supreme Betrayal, dealing with some additional aspects of Constitutionalism After Trump, including muticulturalism, religion, and trans rights! (We’re getting our act together just as we might be running out of ideas!—not really😀)

Trump on tariffs fits the definition of chutzpah (“I killed my parents, have mercy on me, an orphan”): I collected so much money illegally that giving it back would be a disaster. (More formally, the fact that giving it back would be a disaster is a reason for saying it wasn’t collected illegally.)

What I’ve been reading: Ian McEwan, What We Can Know—astonishingly beautifully written though I can’t explain how. It looks like (in part) a novel of ideas, but the ideas are as much characters as the characters are—fully realized, as critics like to say, but existing (only) in imagination.

1/ Wisdom of Chou En-lai (“What do you think of the events in France? Too soon to tell”): Read a 2010 book w/ 19 case studies of constitution making from 1978-2005. As of today probably 1/2 are completely out of date. ...

Interpreting jury nullification in Sandwich Man case: Jury q. to judge re bodily injury/harm suggests they were looking 4 some linguistic hook that wd let them say elements weren't satisfied b/c officer wasn’t really “hurt.” So, not a pure “give me a break this is a ridiculous prosecution” verdict.

Ah, Great Britain—the home of liberty, where you—yes, you (or at least a lot of you)—can apply to be appointed to the Supreme Court: www.supremecourt.uk/about-the-co...

My favorite cross-tabs factoid: In VA, of those who thought that Jay Jones’s texts were disqualifying 9% voted for him. Cue Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

New Supreme Betrayal episode: A conversation with Richard Re about why he describes the Roberts Court as a conservative Warren Court, and a dialogue about critical legal studies and his analysis: supreme-betrayal-how-the-supreme-court-and-constitutional.simplecast.com/episodes/con...

New episode of Supreme Betrayal: Constitutionalism After Trump Part One—against restorationism/Schumerism, some suggestions for institutional reform going forward. supreme-betrayal-how-the-supreme-court-and-constitutional.simplecast.com/episodes/con...

Chevy Chase DC an hour in

Must be missing something abt Johnson's refusal to swear in "Rep" Grijalva to avoid discharge vote on Epstein Transparency ACT. Even if passed by the House and Senate, it would be subject to a presidential veto. Is the thought that any vote against Trump will be like the dam breaking a la Watergate?

Learn how to think (in constitutional terms) about the Jimmy Kimmel kerfuffle in the latest episode of Supreme Betrayal: supreme-betrayal-how-the-supreme-court-and-constitutional.simplecast.com/episodes/the... creators.spotify.com/pod/show/2ao... podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...

Judge Immergut was appointed to the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by CJ Roberts.

Why are the birthright citizenship cases not such a big deal and a big deal? Find out why in supreme-betrayal-how-the-supreme-court-and-constitutional.simplecast.com/episodes/bir... open.spotify.com/episode/0eTv... podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/b...

1/ Latest episode of Supreme Betrayal dropped--conversation with Will Baude about originalism as "our law" and the implications if the constitution is, as ours might be, unattractive: open.spotify.com/episode/1BLi...

1/ A note on a term that's likely to bandied about misleadingly: The ED VA has what's known as a rocket docket but the term was invented to describe time to trial for civil cases, not criminal ones. (Use your favorite search engine to confirm that.) Average time to trial for criminal cases ...

I wonder whether Homan declared the $50k as 2024 income last April. (Still has time to amend the return, I suppose.)

Only time will tell whether John Roberts is a modern Roger Taney (endorsed an evil regime & contributed to causing a literal civil war) or a modern Melville Fuller (Who? precisely; let the Gilded Era's domination by wealth go unchecked but followed by Progressive Era).

Now let's see what's on the menu for TACO Tuesday.

I feel vindicated, having told folks that I'd bet (with narrow odds) on Kimmel's reinstatement relatively quickly. (Waited to post this until I saw it on the NYT website.)

Listening to excerpts from Leavitt's briefing today I had this flash: These people don't believe that they have immortal souls that can be endangered by lying. The crosses many of them wear must stand for some other beliefs.

To quote DJT, I am designating ICE & leaders Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem a major terrorist organization. His & my designations have exactly the same legal effect though his is likely to have a larger practical effect than mine (though given that Antifa doesn't exist, maybe not that much larger)..

Wordle 1,551 2/6 ⬜⬜⬜🟩🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Three days in a row! This can't last.

Wordle 1,550 2/6 ⬜🟨⬜🟩🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Two days in a row!

I hope political scientists are taking notes for a study of the relative power of The State and Civil Society (first Harvard, now the Ford Foundation) in the United States. I'd take narrow odds favoring Civil Society.

Andthe RSS feed for our episode onTrump's Tariffs: supreme-betrayal-how-the-supreme-court-and-constitutional.simplecast.com/episodes/rec...

Wordle 1,549 2/6 ⬜🟩🟨⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

I missed when this went up--Judicial Time: A Research Note: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers..... No law review to which it was submitted was interested in it, but (no surprise) I think it offers a new and helpful perspective on some current matters of interest to both law folks and political scientists.

The Apple Podcast link for our episode on the tariff case: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/r...

Returning after our summer break, a new episode of Supreme Betrayal, on the pending tariff decision, going into the weeds and guessing somewhat tentatively that the Court will OK the tariffs (link to Apple Podcasts to come when I figure it out): open.spotify.com/episode/4m2L...

I gave a presentation to a seminar at Miami Law School on constitutional hardball. It's available, along with other presentations to the seminar, here: www.discourse.net/2025/09/miam... FWIW there's a brief discussion of whether the term "constitutional crisis" is helpful (I'm on the "no" side).

Wordle 1,545 2/6 ⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

I can't be the first to say this but it hasn't appeared in my feed. We really do appear to have a Marxist administration (in this case, Chico not Groucho): "Who you gonna believe, me or your eyes?" (from Duck Soup)

Wordle 1,541 2/6 ⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Looks like the Anthropic settlement may get me more than the royalties on a number of the books I've written. Fingers crossed!

Frustration at progressive commentariat on legal issues: I can generate b/t 10 & 20 nonfrivolous legal qs. that have to be answered before u can answer w/ some modest confidence the q., Will Lisa Cook exercise authority as a Fed member in the short or long run? Almost none raised by the commentariat