IMO this is actually also an underrated problem for democratic theory The existence of a democratically enacted law ought, in principle, be enough for people to feel that doing the forbidden thing is wrong It's a problem if our democratic institutions lack that kind of authority

I should note that, if what y'all are saying about how it's literally impossible to legislate against genAI is correct, then this is an ENORMOUS problem for democratic political theory and basically compels taking drastic action to fix, lest the possibility of collective self-government be lost

But as to Orin’s complaint about left legal scholarship & the academy, imo where brilliant-thinking-gone-wrong matters practically, the legal right is unsurpassed. Brilliant theories of the constitution from the right have transformed our governmental structure into something quite monarchical 🤯 6/x

This is about race

What's the mood like in Germany because it *ought* to be *apocalyptic* given that number

I actively hate this perspective

He is risen

Carbon monoxide

My perspective on this (it comes up a bunch in the con law context) is always wonky because I'm a Jew whose family has always celebrated Christmas 🤷‍♂️

Until *extremely* recently, if you polled on what we would now call Fight vs. Not Fight, "Fight" would get like 30% among Democrats

Okay so I read the paragraph where the judge concluded that the Bill of Attainder Clause applies to the president and it strikes me as absurd It is the nature of the executive to deal in particulars! The sentiment expressed here would fit better under due process

I suspect that part of the difficulty, when discussing the law of impeachment question, is that democratic constitutional law is this grand exercise in self-restraint It is a law made by the People, for the People. In that sense, how can it be said to be binding? And yet it does bind, it must bind

One really strange dimension of the Trump years of the breathless suspense about whether some piece of evidence for what we all already know is legit

Maaaaaaaan How can this be real I wish to register a complaint

MY SOUL IS READY, BONDI. HOW ABOUT YOURS?

Right, the story is WHAT HAPPENED The argument about whether it was appropriate is another matter, and can proceed in various public fora AFTER the reporting about what factually happened

Of course Trump should be impeached for having sent so much as one person to this torture camp. That part should go without saying. (He would also ideally be, like, prosecuted, sent to the Hague, things of that nature)

I'm sorry, if we're having a conversation about law stuff (design of the Supreme Court, in this case) and you cite, explicitly, a Google AI summary, to me, an actual factual expert in the field, to try to show why I'm wrong..... that's an insta-block

Jamelle does a really good job sketching out the essentials of the Article III scheme here, but if you're interested in a (slightly) longer/fuller exposition, check out my recent Constitutional Perspectives piece on the topic! eveningconstitutional.net/the-federal-...

This is excellent; of course I particularly love what Jamelle has to say about judicial review as an inherent property of constitutionalism Would add two things First, that reform is needed not only because the Court is an obstacle in practice, but because it lacks structural legitimacy

This is true and our society would need to be significantly revamped in order for implementing it to be feasible (we should do this)

Okay I have a question about this, and it's "why in god's name isn't this illegal"

I wrote about the conservative quest to restore the "true" Constitution, the Antebellum Constitution, shorn of the egalitarian nonsense in the Reconstruction Amendments, a document that replaces equality with a society of dominators and the dominated. www.theatlantic.com/politics/202...

Divine intervention, innit?

Hmmmm what if I just go straight into Skyfall, what about that??

Okay, my remedial cultural education continues with Quantum of Solace

The mathematical techniques are not rigorous btw

Using the WAR framework is interesting because, in baseball, as best we can tell teams have little ability to control the distribution of their runs scored and allowed across games So the way you win more games is by scoring more net runs over the course of the season Politics isn't like that!

i cannot escape the sense that what these people are fundamentally opposed to is political leadership

Oh my goddddddddd

We are, in fact, obliged to take in refugees. The right of asylum is a treaty obligation lmao, not that anyone seems to care these days

Of course this framing presupposes that god does not, like, exist

JUST IMPEACH TRUMP FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Fairly sure the act of Congress passed almost unanimously a month ago expressly makes this illegal

Can we as a nation please just decide to apply an adverse inference already

So uhhhh did they release the files??

To everyone citing MAGA as a counter-example: no, that's wrong. The premise of MAGA is "America Good, and that's bad"

I'm like this guy, but for political regimes xkcd.com/883/

Mmmmkay so this thread got me to put on Casino Royale (first time since I've seen it since it was in theaters and I was on a high school trip to D.C. lol) and my first reaction is, of course: It's very weird hearing Daniel Craig NOT talk like Benoit Blanc

The thing about this specific claim, from Wagner, is that...... I dunno man, "America Bad" is never going to be the official position of the United States federal government?????

NB: When I, a professor of law, profess that an act is unlawful, I am not doing it to inform the lawbreaker, but rather to inform you, the reader. So the question “what, like you think he cares?” is inapposite. The question is whether *you* care. I think you should, which is why I bother.

Hey look, it's the Holy Grail of right-wing jurisprudence

This is: unconstitutional!

Of course it's a strawman to say that the anti-Trump position here is "White House sacred, do not touch" (It's "it's bad for Trump to do this without legal authorization, in the manner of a king" and "what he doesn't like about the White House is that it's conspicuously NOT a royal palace")

Like I dunno man Obviously "hung out with Jeffrey Epstein" is not, itself, enough to convict someone of child sex crimes But in contexts that aren't criminal prosecution, yeah idk I think we can just err on the side of "who needs them anyway"

The idea that the DNC knows why Trump won is absurd on its face

This is always true. You don't need to know what the "this" is before you know that this is true.

It's still very bad the extent to which we've normalized this idea that the president can spend money because he feels like it

Good evening! It's the latest installment of Constitutional Perspectives! The second-to-last installment of Level One! Today's lesson covers the history of civil rights *after* the adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments: eveningconstitutional.net/civil-rights...

I am so frustrated that we've just totally forgotten the political economy of money, as a nation and a people