So even with no defense attorney there to cross examine witnesses, no defense witnesses, nobody challenging the authenticity of any of the evidence, Halligan was still only able to convince barely half the jurors when the standard isn’t even proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sounds crazy but it’s literally just a plain, accurate description. Again, like all the rest of the lawless authoritarianism, this Article III constitutional crisis is really an Article I constitutional crisis. Congress could end this nonsense at literally any time. bsky.app/profile/mcop...

Today’s shameful shadow docket decision from the Supreme Court—allowing Trump to unilaterally cancel $4 billion in aid—is not behavior that any healthy democracy tolerates of its judiciary. It is a sign of constitutional rot that precedes the rule of law’s collapse. slate.com/news-and-pol...

Back in March, former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and I "sat" next to each other in Trump White House Victim Memorandum class. How pathetic and embarrassing to see a sitting US President continue to personally attack a private citizen. People still think this isn't authoritarian?

Trump asks Supreme Court if he can ignore the 14th Amendment

When you try to teach students textbook civics nowadays, they do indeed look at like your crazy. And you do indeed sometimes feel crazy trying to reconcile your knowledge of the formal and informal institutions with the horror that is living through Trump II.

I used to be very (small c) conservative re. court reforms because of all the "what if" arguments re. possible abuse of such reforms. But forget all of that. The abuses are coming from SCOTUS itself. The majority is exercising sheer political will, not reason. TIME FOR REFORM. Expansion, at minimum.

So many of us came so very unwillingly to this place of viewing the Supreme Court as unworthy of being viewed as a judicial body. Unworthy of veneration, unworthy of respect. So profoundly reluctantly. But, good lord have they earned it.

Trump demands that Microsoft fire Lisa Monaco. Anybody from the party of small government have an issue with this or nah?

the question to ask the republican majority on the court is “what CAN’T trump do?”

So if a future congress were to chose, as the current one has chosen not to, to exercise its power of the purse rather than to leave it to the whim of the president — whose power does this SCOTUS propose should prevail: the constitution written by the founders, or the writ of their shadow docket?

BREAKING NYT:   Trump just fired a U.S. attorney who insisted on following a court order.   Michele Beckwith, the top federal prosecutor in Sacramento, was fired hours after she reminded a Border Patrol chief to abide by court-ordered restrictions on immigration raids.

Congress has the power of the purse; but no one has standing to challenge the administration’s refusal to spend the money appropriated by Congress as Congress intended … is quite the position!

Huh https://www.levernews.com/content/files/2025/01/1985RobertsMemo-Budget.pdf

Kagan: The so-called irreparable harm that the Trump administration says it suffers is merely "the price of living under a Constitution that gives Congress the power to make spending decisions through the enactment of appropriations laws...a frustration any President must bear."

Laws passed by our Congress—using its power of the purse guaranteed by our Constitution to direct our public money for some purpose—are (who knew!) just humble suggestions. Any Liberal or Conservative president can negate that power at will, as the Framers intended.

This is a ridiculously broad understanding of the President's foreign affairs powers -- that the Executive Branch experiences "harms to [its] conduct of foreign affairs" when it is must spend foreign aid money appropriated in a bill signed by the President. Whither Congress's power of the purse?

If I was Donald Trump I would not be drawing the public’s attention right now to my ability to release files

3 rules of the Roberts Court in Trump II: 1) See no unconstitutional acts 2) Hear no unconstitutional acts 3) Speak so as to never quash any unconstitutional acts You see, the Court rarely *approves* of Trump II's illegality so much as it finds ways to make it impossible to rule *against* it.

It's almost like SCOTUS is doing a bit at this point. Note the absence of any rationale by the majority apart from 3 conclusory sentences. This is not reason, nor is it a "legal enterprise." It is the sheer, unreasoned exercise of power. We need SCOTUS reform desperately.

Yet again, the GOP supermajority steps in to allow Trump to break the law. The case will be decided on the merits later, it says, when the damage cannot be undone. But in the meantime it is giving the Trump administration a green light to engage in impoundment.

A key theme of Trump II is graft. Underneath all the authoritarian/fascist lawlessness and cruelty, there's graft far as the eye can see.

Hey, I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that oversight of Article II is absolutely in Article I's "lane" and definitely qualifies as "doing your job."

Who could have known putting s Fox News personality in charge of the world's most complex bureaucracy would lead to clownish mistakes

Mother of God. www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...

Imagine being one of these incredibly impressive four-stars and being lectured about being a warrior by an alcoholic former weekend cable news host

you win if you fight

This is going to end up being the most pointless and expensive "this meeting could have been an email" in history.

The most pointless and expensive "could've been a drunk Signal message" in history

Authoritarians and their allies cave when others push back.

This graf does so much work. @nytimes.com #Comey @jamescomey.bsky.social www.nytimes.com/2025/09/25/u...

Why do headlines say "norms shattered" when what is meant is "laws broken" or "Constitution violated"?

Labels can impact politics. My paper @apsrjournal.bsky.social "What Happens When You Can't Check the Box?" shows when Middle Eastern & North African (MENA) Americans are excluded from identity categories, they assert MENA identity when answering relevant political questions. doi.org/10.1017/S000...

Pregnant women, DON’T TAKE MEDICAL ADVICE FROM DONALD TRUMP OR RFK JR.

Old enough to remember:

Once again, this is the predictable & unprecedented new level of open corruption that happens when the president openly monetizes his hotel in plain sight for four years & we don't do anything about it. bsky.app/profile/mcop...

Endless, unprecedented corruption large and small

<popcorn eating dot gif>

"What Happens When You Can’t Check the Box? Categorization Threat and Public Opinion among Middle Eastern and North African Americans" by @asdurso.bsky.social www.cambridge.org/core/journal... www.amandadurso.com (3/x)

I prefer presidents who don't post rambling, scientifically unfounded medical advice in all caps on social media, please and thank you.

The entitled arrogance of these Wizards In Robes is astounding, & we should treat them with the disdain that they treat us & our democracy: bsky.app/profile/mcop...

Trump believes Lois' mayoral campaign strategy works for him too--just keep saying "transgender" and wait for the applause!

Just doing the authoritarianism out in the open, because heaven forbid anyone have the right to hold them accountable for the authoritarianism.

The way this lady flips her hair aside as she blithely insists there was an "overemphasis on slavery" at the Smithsonian is a perfect little touch. But more important -- museums aren't there to make you feel good. You're thinking of an "amusement park." The words look a little alike, I guess.

My comments to The Washington Post on why the charges against Comey are so dangerous wapo.st/4nrPAYw

As Tim Snyder points out, Hegseth convening hundreds of generals & admirals in person is a pointless dominance display that’s also an obvious secuity blunder. And it got me thinking about how often performative toughness is awful for security. open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p...

This would be marginally more credible if the Court treated the current President like they treated the last one

Opinion | I'm a Republican Senator. If I don't let Donald Trump use the Department of Justice to frivolously prosecute his personal enemies, I'll be primaried by someone who will let Donald Trump use the Department of Justice to frivolously prosecute his personal enemies.