Several posts I've seen this afternoon/evening have me considering writing a bot to periodically repost the Bluesky Miranda warning: everything you post here can and will be used against you (and probably taken out of context to boot)...

Genuine question for mil/legal experts: even if we accept that, in general, individual SMs don't get to second-guess the political decision to use force (or its constitutionality), would an order to attack a NATO ally (e.g. invade Greenland) be an unlawful order for UCMJ purposes?

When I see a headline in my inbox "Inside Trump's Decision to Remove Maduro," I can't help but think that it was a short leap (at least in his head/the Administration's view) from arbitrarily removing executive officials in the US to doing it in other countries. Hemispheric Unitary Executive Theory.

Give him another Gatorade bath.

This game will never end

I don't know if Amazon is using some sort of automated system to generate its TNF "Rapid Recap" video, but the fact that it cuts directly from the SEA TD to make it 30-28, then the "incomplete" 2-point conversion, and then to it being 30-30 without showing the replay decision is very confusing...

Baruch Dayan Emet. Unfortunately, an evergreen post.

If you had Indiana and Duke winning conference *football* championships in the same year, I hope you won good money. (Or you're lying. :))

Very good points. Another opportunity for the Court to show that equity matters even apart from the substance.

Ship has probably sailed, but does the logic of CASA v. Trump also apply to facial challenges to criminal laws? If Cong were, e.g., to repass the Sedition Act, would there be any ability to bring a pre-enforcement 1A challenge or would defs have to assert the defense individually until SCOTUS ruled?

If there’s one thing that everyone agreed on at the time, it was the First and Second Banks of the United States 

How is the second phase of the Qatari place grift supposed to be legal even on its own terms? Aren't gifts to Presidential Libraries the property of the United States anyway? (Just as with Presidential gifts received during an Administration and not purchased by the previous POTUS at market value.)

Genuine question: to the extent the Bureau of Prisons has statutory authority to designate the place of confinement for federal prisoners, is there a limitation that it has to be in the US? Subject to the 8A, could BOP just decide that some prisoners are, for reasons, best sent abroad?

So does everyone who imports anything have standing to challenge the tariffs (whether as arbitrary & capricious, outside the scope of IEEPA, etc.)?

If the WH imposes tariffs with immediate effect, does that mean stuff just sits at customs until people figure out what the new rates are and pay them? Is there a rule for the exact moment when they become due? Whether the goods touch US soil before POTUS (or relevant Sec'y) signs his name?

I don't want to ignore the real, immediate harm done to those whom the US has illegally removed to El Salvador. But to ask a broader legal q: if it's the Gov't's view that habeas jx disappars as soon as they transfer someone to a foreign sovereign's custody, what's the limiting principle? /1

I wonder if we should be talking more about the oaths we took when we became attorneys. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States...." Not "just when it's convenient." Or "just when I like the results."

look, you guys know me. I am on record so many times saying that I hate the filibuster. but if the rule is there and it supposedly helps produce bipartisan results and is about upholding the institution and power of the senate? now is the time to use it

Why would any Senate Dem vote for the CR, now that Rubio has confirmed that Trump-Musk will simply cancel congressionally-authorized funding they don't like? That's a vote to neuter yourselves. On the pod, Tom Malinowski is great on why Dems can't bail out Trump: newrepublic.com/article/1925...

As a 2-time Columbia grad for whom my undergrad years were a formative influence on my Jewish identity, and then my time at the law school gave me my career, it's been a troubling few days. But even as I doubt many ppl care about one random poster's views, I feel I ought to respond for my own sake.

Continuing our cursed game of Constitution Bingo, can an EO violate the Bill of Attainder Clause?

I guess we need to wait to see the opinion, but if the D.C. Cir. is going to stay the Dellinger (OSC) injunction pending appeal, it presumably would reach the same conclusion in the Harris (MSPB) case. Which would render the MSPB inquorate just as the WH is mass firing civil servants. Just great.

The ongoing game of Obscure Constitutional Bingo continues, and the Export Clause prepares for its 15 minutes of fame. (I suppose his point might have been that US farmers should be ready to fill the demand left open by the import tariffs on competitive goods from outside the US?)

LGM! '86 variety.

I guess it's good to know where "opposition to the electric vehicle transition,""preventing waste, fraud, and abuse in government contracting," and simple graft rank in the Administration's hierarchy of values. www.npr.org/2025/02/13/g...

I don't know if NY or Kings County has a stronger case in terms of jurisdiction over the relevant acts, but one of those DAs should seek a state indictment post haste. This is ridiculous (and corrupt).

Understanding this skeet is the height of political knowledge right now.

So does Sec. Bessent now get to cast two votes on the Financial Stability Oversight Council - one as SecTreas and another as CFPB Director? (Is that perhaps an indication that Congress didn't want the same person holding both roles?)

You have a successful legal career and are appointed to a lifetime position as a federal district judge. And then the Trump Administration puts you in a position of having to say things like "And as it pertains to (skeptical voice) 'wokeness,' is that just the gender ideology portion?" Oy.

Has anyone gotten confirmation yet as to whether Musk was designated a special government employee or if he's entirely freelancing? I recall that was up-in-the-air during the late transition.

I agree with this, with the one caveat being that if the Dem Sens actually believe the GOP would go into recess to allow mass recess appointments, they might have to moderate their procedural obstruction. But even then, it's still worth trying, making the scene, and then seeing how the GOP responds.

#OnThisDay 1984: this account of a TV scheduling controversy involving Wonder Woman, Israel's National Religious Party, and a "lost in translation" moment to do with the Book of Proverbs is pretty much priceless.

This would be a good start. if you're trying to break through in a battle of attention, take a page out of the insurgent candidate campaign playbook. And when you combine it with the name recognition of a senior senator (and in one case former Presidential candidate), you should get media uptake.

The first Senators to actually do anything about the Trump admin

A not-fully-formed thought: the radical executive overreach of the last 11 days is a side effect of modern judicial supremacy. The Trump Administration isn't asserting departmentalism, even when in theory it might make sense. Rather, it's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. /1

Has there been an explanation yet for why OPM claims to have authority to direct agencies to review their contracts, orders, comms, forms, etc.? I could *almost* see that being an OMB function, but the only thing connecting OPM seems to be that it has a pliant Acting Director/Musk-aligned staff.

Unless I'm misreading Rule 9, Clause, 2, the Minority Leader can force a vote on an impeachment resolution whenever he wants. (The majority can/would table it, but he can try again another day.) They raised the bar for consideration of motions to vacate to protect the Speaker, but not impeachments.

A good response to impoundment and the IG firings by Senate Dems would be to grind everything in that chamber to a halt. No unanimous consent, holds on everything, wide use of the filibuster. Make it painful to move anything. Trump’s violations demand a proportionate response, not business as usual.

I know there are many, many problems with the Trump citizenship order, but even if we take it on its own terms, is the idea supposed to be that the EO itself makes them non-citizens? Or that it is declaratory of what the law already was, and inviting the courts to affirm that?

This is his pardon, purchas’d by such sin For which the pardoner himself is in.

I wonder if this ends up being the test case that ends up being brought to challenge this, because it doesn't seem to have even a figleaf of justification under the "subject to the jurisdiction" proviso.

If the AG is of the opinion that releasing the second volume of the OSC report would be in the public interest *but for* the pending prosecutions of Trump's co-defendants, at what point does the public interest justify just dismissing those prosecutions of clearly less culpable defendants?

This is excellent. א פרייליכן חנוכה!

Trump thinks you get 5 free armies every so often if he holds all of North America.

One thing I wonder is whether Elon's co-presidency is due more to his association with Trump or his demonstrated willingness to spend campaign $. If he had threatened to back a primary campaign against any R voting for the CR, but hadn't gotten Trump's support, would it have had a similar effect?

Negotiations about the Debt Ceiling are a one-way rachet that the GOP has used to try to shrink government spending. There's never been a time when Dems have been able to get increased spending as a condition to raise the debt ceiling. Getting rid of it would prevent future GOP hostage taking.

This is (unironically) a terrific idea. The debt limit serves no purpose except to be taken hostage and force crises. For once I hope GOP lawmakers listen to Trump.