Imagine if these goofs directed their viewers to call Congress demanding impeachment instead of wasting their breath hoping members of the executive branch will do anything.

Nixon's reaction to Roe v. Wade is really about what I would have expected.

Listened to oral args on birthright citizenship at SCOTUS and I want the Barrett quote, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about the Constitution?" on a shirt.

Post World War II to mid-50s has a similar decade division problem.

Legal liberalism success is always downstream of political liberalism. I have touched on this point in @liberalcurrents.com actually. www.liberalcurrents.com/the-fight-ma...

This long but really good thread fits in with my general heuristic on AI in legal work: it is only useful if you already know a decent amount about what you are asking the AI to find or do.

I think it is a toss up who Hank Hill would vote for. People overrate demographics and underrate individual temperament when assessing people's voting choices. Demographically Hank seems like a Trump voter, temperamentally Hank doesn't seem like a hater, which cuts against Trump's appeal.

AI needs to be treated like any legal treatise or head note summary. You cannot get around actually reading the case. Heartbreaking, I know.

Do not knock cinnamon rolls and chili until you try it.

Great thread. The law is powerful, but slow moving, medicine. And excessive faith in its curative powers can obscure that there are other remedies than judicial ones for what ails you.

Knew about Chief Justice Marshall's conflict of interest in Marbury v. Madison, but just learned that Madison didn't even send an attorney to argue his half of the case. Amazing legal ethics work in the early Republic.

"Seeing Like a Constitution" is a title for a law review article waiting to be picked up if it hasn't. (Closest I know is an article titled "Thinking Like a Constitution").

This love letter to legislative history and intent in statutory interpretation from @ballsandstrikes.org is great. Here are some excerpts, but read the whole thing.

Reading @joshchafetz.bsky.social's "Congress's Constitution" and being reminded Bork was defeated not by liberal nefariousness, but because the more people got to know him the less they liked him.

My pitch for Casablanca always is "It's good, it's fun, it's movies. Liking movies and not liking Casablanca is an impossibility. You are guaranteed a good time." I have never had anyone disagree after they watch it.

Me reading the description of the movie Carlos (2010) on the Criterion Channel for the first time.

Big announcement from us: we are fully funded, we met our goal. I cannot thank everyone who supported us enough. We are putting the pedal on the gas to put out work worthy of your trust.

I just learned a new volume of the Oxford History of the United States is dropping this year and felt others should know as well. global.oup.com/academic/pro...

Like: reducing judicial intervention in constitutional disputes. Dislike: the judiciary hyping one branch of government over another in the process. The Curtiss-Wright language @skennedy2504.myatproto.social draws on in his piece is a great example of unnecessary hyping of the executive.

A solid history of SCOTUS on presidential military action from @skennedy2504.myatproto.social. Though I think this article actually shows courts are not well equipped to constrain executive military actions rather than showing courts enable the executive. www.liberalcurrents.com/how-the-supr...

The principle is called "we have the votes and you don't," it's the principle used to determine all court cases

This is exceptionally good from @sjshancoxli.liberalcurrents.com for @liberalcurrents.com www.liberalcurrents.com/the-delusion...

Really wonder if Truman is ultimately to blame sometimes.

I'm not saying my home state's politics make sense, I am saying this how it is though.

Originalist Living Constitutionalist Legal Realist Schmittian

Hard to oversell how incredibly good @jgienapp.bsky.social's "The Second Creation" is. Just incredible, subtle, mind-altering constitutional history.

If I recall right they rejected Johnson's nominee. Then they abolished the open seat and preemptively abolished another one over Johnson's veto! Their hatred of the executive was so pure. It was beautiful.

Pleased SCOTUS is returning to its true function — furthering the interests of the business class in a way that occasionally benefits the rest of us.

fun fact: this used to be how SCOTUS politics used to work

It was this.

DS9 is the wokest Trek and it is not even close.

I read the article from the former Alito clerk referenced in this piece and I can't decide if just Alito is the cheap asshole for not taking his clerk's out for a nice lunch or the other Justices are cheap assholes for taking their clerks out to pricey restaurants and not paying.

I think we need more judgey signals: "Somehow disapproved only on other grounds in" "Shade thrown in" "See to believe" "ill-considered accord"

You could append this footnote to most references lawyers and judges make to the Magna Carta and you would be correct. From @joshchafetz.bsky.social's "The New Judicial Power.

Great piece from @skennedy2504.myatproto.social on the disturbing likelihood that we are dealing with a Supreme Court staffed by justices whose only contact with the larger world is through the filter of right wing partisan media.

I remember reading Trump v. US at a bar when it dropped and thinking "Is this what it felt like to read Dred Scott in 1857?"

This is a good thing for con law profs (and imho property law profs) to do. It is a useful exercise for law students to wrestle with the law of slavery to instill an appropriate skepticism about the placid assumption that justice and rule of law are coterminous concepts.

I’ve written a new piece for @liberalcurrents.com in response to an open letter from the economist Donald Boudreaux. I address ways in which criticisms of egalitarianism err. It’s not enough to accuse them of envy or economic illiteracy. There are serious moral, social, and political concerns.

Reading Morton J. Horowitz's "The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860" and chuckled at this (correct) observation that the term "reasonable" in the common law is usually a signal to "insert judge's personal policy preferences here".

I’m starting to think spending twenty hours a day getting egged on by other hyper politically engaged mentally ill people isn’t good for any of us.

It really is hard to emphasize how different the Founding generations relationship was with the law. Stuff we consider the Good Things now (unanimous appellate judicial opinions) were considered Bad Things then (sneaky attempts to create false unanimity on an issue of law where there wasn't one).

19th century racists were very clear on the difference, actually.

Great thread on Ilan Wurman's latest Originalist foray into constitutional naturalization law. Really amazing how I can only slightly alter a passage I wrote on Wurman in 2019 and it still applies in 2026.

Given who I think is being subskeeted here I do not think this is THAT amazing. Kinda predictable actually.

Posting is not merely a due process right, it is a substantive due process right. We all know this. This was the original public meaning. The Founders were the OG posters.

Continuing my journey of large books of political theory I am going to motivate myself to read by live skeeting with Augustine's "City of God" (this journey will take much longer than Arendt).

Hannah Arendt stopping me in my tracks in her essay "On Lying and Politics".

you should support liberal currents!

I'm getting old enough that when I meet a person who is young my first thought it "this person doesn't remember 9/11."

Just hit our 200th contribution of the day! Yours next?: www.gofundme.com/f/the-libera... As we roll through the 2 o'clock hour on the West Coast it's great to see this check-in from contributing editor Adam Rust. Among his good works, Adam clocked Big Law's attempts to appease Trump back in April: