Just some law talking guy
443 followers 953 following 1,550 posts
view profile on Bluesky 
he's the first DSA executive candidate I've seen go into full "I'm gonna win and I'm gonna govern" mode and winning requires some strategic distance on policy positions, but more importantly governing requires getting into an array of specific topics where ideology can't provide the answers you need
"Ideology can't provide the answers you need" is one of the core failure modes of many socialist states too, so it's a really important thing to keep top of mind.
He can sue the NYT for defamation in his private capacity, and be sued for defamation in his private capacity.* The govt cannot be defamed, and cannot sue for defamation. *This gets fucked up with trying to divine what is in private vs official capacity, but the Tylenol thing is not a close call.
Or eat shit sooner than that if the EDVA Grand Jury no bills them and they hit the SoL before they can rush it to another one.
Not, because the Westfall Act immunizes the federal govt from defamation claims.* *More specifically, sovereign immunity means the govt is immune from all torts. Westfall Act allows some tort claims against the govt, but specifically does not allow defamation claims.
They fired the CEO due to the backlash a few months ago
The link preview has Aaron at 2, but he's 1 when you click through.
If the Westfall Act was struck down, then you couldn't sue the government for any tort. The Westfall Act is the waiver of sovereign immunity that allows suits for (some) torts to be made against the govt.
There is a tort: defamation. The issue is that the Westfall Act explicitly bars suits against the government for that tort. If this were a private individual the defamation suit would be a slam dunk for money damages as a remedy. But the law allows the feds to commit this tort with impunity.
The problem is remedy, which is a distinct element of standing. To bring a suit you need to have something the government can be ordered to do. What, exactly, is the court supposed to order HHS to do or refrain from doing?
Is it absurd that the full force of the government can be brought to bear in support of lies? Yes. But as many people who've gotten on the wrong side of the cops know, there generally is no remedy for government lies.
I still don't see a cause of action. The Westfall Act bars defamation suits against the govt, and without some sort of official action there isn't anything for the court to enjoin. If they try to do regulatory action then a suit can challenge that. But not just talk.
There isn't a legal remedy for Trump bloviating at a press conference. But if they try to mandate a package warning then there could be a lawsuit to prevent compelled false speech.
I am unsure if this is a DM. It seems like it on the face, but also Trump has like a famous life-long aversion to electronic written communication. He never sends emails and his penchant is always to call people on the phone - never text.
Also Uline is fucking overpriced as shit. When I was doing a lot of paper and products buying for a law firm, they'd send me a catalog and I'd just page through and gawp at their prices.
Sometimes you need to stress bake a croquembouche
I still have agriculture as my bet where things go south. Did you know John Deere owns a quite large banking operation? And the harvest crisis is pretty baked in at this point.
I think it would honestly help. Right now there is *constant* talk about what "Democrats" should do or say, but because nobody can speak for "Democrats" it is all bullshit. Obama is the only person in America who can plausibly speak for the Democratic party.
Pertient repost. Might've been from you.
He has Mr. Burns syndrome.
A little taster from a really good show they did recently. www.youtube.com/watch?v=97sV...
/3 There are no moral or norm-based barriers to it trying to do crazy, evil things. But that doesnât make every âwhat if the administration does thisâ scenario equally plausible. Itâs less likely to do complicated things that take careful planning or follow-through, for instance.
The third circuit (absurdly) said otherwise today www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/222...
no
I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCHES... but I do consent to you stealing that phrasing.
"I have already invoked and I continue to invoke my right to silence and to have counsel present" is a phrasing I think is very helpful. It helps to prevent them claiming ambiguity in prior invocations if that becomes relevant.
If Judge Katsas is correct that Trump can fire Cook âfor causeâ by lobbing unproven accusations of fraud without an iota of due process, then the Fedâs âfor causeâ removal protections are meaningless. This is a joke of a dissent.
Is this tool publicly available?
I'm saying that difference is decided by the creators of each show, not by the Emmys. The creators decide "should we submit so-and-so as lead or supporting?"
I believe you/your studio has to apply for the Emmys and you submit some exemplar episodes. So it's basically up to the actors/producers whether they submit under lead or supporting.
California could if it owned a patent offer to license it for free/reduced price to firms HQ'd in California? But how the patent itself works is exclusively Federal jurisdiction.
Pie: Mixed berry Ice Cream: Strawberry Donut: Cruller Bar: Lemon Cake: Chocolate lava Other: Eclair
They closed this? www.npr.org/2014/06/07/3...
Much as that would be nice, it would get tossed immediately under the Westfall Act, which specifically bars suits against federal officials for defamation.
The "gracias" at the end really is the kicker.
I know there's like 50 other more important things wrong, but the art choices are *so bad.* Why do you have the same unframed off-center photo of a Buddha statute twice? Why is every artwork so high you have to crane your neck to see it?
For your consideration: A GM executive in the 1920s decided he wanted a castle in Detroit, and by golly he built one www.zillow.com/homedetails/...
Also bagged salad kits are super useful for a very low effort healthier meal.
GLP-1s are kind of actually miracle drugs for metabolic syndromes, which is just a huge chunk of what makes people sick. Diabetes, liver disease, and tons of other stuff which has historically been super difficult to treat.
Right, which is why that rule idea has an officer of the Senate send a specific approval of the named nominee, after giving a majority of Senators the opportunity to say no to the nominee.
I could see something like "The President Pro Tempore of the Senate may transmit to POTUS the Senate's approval of a nominee for [office] 15 days after receiving the nomination, unless in that time a majority of Senators file a letter with the clerk objecting to the nomination."
It would be highly irregular and a terrible idea, but they could prevent anyone from resigning by advising the King not to appoint the member who wants to resign to the office necessary to effectuate the resignation.
7th Party System hope posting?
Lovely! Nice job on the chocolate temper! (something I have been avoiding đ )
Best piece of advice I got was from Claire Saffitz' book. Always work towards the result you want at each step, not worrying as much about the time that's prescribed. Like for that focaccia she says to let it go in the stand mixer 10-15 min. I did almost 30.
so many experiences nowâincl. popular art exhibits, concerts, Disney World, and Shakespeare in the Parkâsuffer from the same problems: limited supply due to the fixed capacity of museums, theme parks and stadiums + infinite global demand, made much worse by options only available to rich people
No, looks like some parts are substantially higher based on the render from this article newyorkyimby.com/2025/05/phas...
/7 SCOTUS, the Federalist Society, the entire academic and intellectual infrastructure that brought us here: they're nothing but pretentious Trumpers. At least the guy in the MAGA hat and "fuck your feelings" t-shirt is honest about who he is. These people are not.
This formulation is popular: contrasting SCOTUS' intolerance of race as an admissions factor with SCOTUS' tolerance of race as a detention factor. There are, in fact, doctrinal, historical, and logical distinctions between the positions, that one could use to dismiss this comparison. But... /1
Honestly I can see someone doing a Carrie Nation at sports book ads or something.
Plus you get people (me) going into your replies to brag on the bagels they baked recently.
I'm aware. I was just giving it as a concrete example.
We just tried to order board game minis from a company in Ukraine and they immediately canceled the order because shipping is basically impossible.
Do you think Jeffries ends up challenged?
Gonna stake farm crisis contagion as my bingo card on what triggers a recession. Farms are crazy leveraged and the risk is pretty concentrated in specific financial institutions. A wave of farm bks could spread into the financial system, 30s style.
not a new take but the 60-vote Senate has ruined senators by making them so accustomed to doing nothing that they now prefer it as the thing they're most familiar with
Yeah, if you want to e.g. make CA high speed rail work, you need the Feds to come in with a giant hammer and say "this gets built, notwithstanding any other provision of law. If we need to eminent domain your land, you can make a money claim but not get an injunction.
So no AOC then? Representative is I think a fine level to top out for "no experience," since as a single member the harm they can do is generally not so great.
I think that's a core cleavage between centrism and liberalism. It is totally possible to be a firebrand non-leftist liberal. But you're going to be talking radically about stuff like equality before the law and democratic rights. Centrism is just sticking your thumb in the wind.
I think this is misinformation. The salt trucks are used for a barrier around many events and there's no date or any confirmation this was used against ICE.
Yes. There is a mountain of precedent that the requirement one have standing (i.e. an actual or imminent injury in fact) to bring suit is a constitutional requirement. Congress cannot confer standing to challenge a law or regulation to someone not actually injured by that law or regulation.
The opening 2 lines of Section III of Flast are just incredibly generic exposition? And I don't think that Congress saying "courts can do advisory opinions now" makes a case at law for Article III purposes.
Lots of precedent says advisory opinions are unconstitutional under Article III. E.g. Flast v Cohen:
Establishing a constitutional court to answer disputes finally would require an amendment to supplant the Supreme Court. You could have a lower constitutional court that just hears challenges to the constitutionality of statutes or govt actions. But it couldn't do advisory opinions.
Has GAO initiated an action in court? I agree a GAO lawsuit would be an interbranch dispute that would go to this special court, but there is afaik no such lawsuit. Just a report from GAO that the Trump admin is ignoring.
This is kind of the point I'm after though. The impoundment cases aren't formally interbranch. They allege separation of powers violations but the parties are not two different branches of government. But yes there need to just be more district judges and clerks and such also.
Oh yeah I guess there is the member of Congress lawsuit about access to ICE detention facilities.
Like I believe the only active interbranch case currently is the contempt proceeding from judge Boasberg? Are there any others?
I don't see why you'd wall it off from the district/circuit courts, mostly because the volume of cases is so low. Even one full time judge would be sitting on their hands 95% of the time. Just do a VRA and say 3 judge panel at the district court and mandatory cert by SCOTUS.
I think specialized courts under district courts make sense for a lot of issues (modeled on bankruptcy court). But interbranch disputes are rare enough and important enough that they should be going to the full district court, if not to a panel of district judges like VRA cases.
"Are you trying to kill me?" - my husband, upon seeing I was making focaccia.
Seems like a colorable double jeopardy case? The constitutional body charged with finding probable cause found none. You can't take another run at a second petit jury after all.
Expectations of foreign countries. Sending the foreign secy makes total sense when it's a boat ride and weeks of the PMs time. The PM bothering to hop on a plane for a day or two signals a lack of seriousness to counterparties.
Easy travel. When travel took ages you needed a trusted senior leader to go to foreign capitals and rep you. Now if there is a big talk to be had with a foreign power, the PM does it himself (& it would be insulting to the other country to pawn it off to foreign secy).
I mean yeah, he can call himself whatever he wants, but if he wants his actions to have legal force and effect, they need to be taken by the Secretary of Defense.
Look, the next Democratic president needs to put everybody involved, from Trump all the way down, on trial for murder. They blew up 11 civilians in broad daylight without statutory authorization.
oh they know they committed actual, legal, can't-even-cover-this-with-the-2001-AUMF murder, huh
Prepositioning for putting them under Title 10 and quickly deploying?
While the idea is tempting, the reality of that would be giving Trump a layup to invoke the insurrection act. The right move imo is to treat the TX guardsmen like civilians on vacation. Pull the humvees over for having invalid plates. Enforce gun laws fully. That kind of thing.
Also while it's plenty of time for Labour to turn it around, I don't think it's plenty of time for Starmer. I very much doubt he stays in downing street another full year.
Made Claire Saffitz' peach slab pie over the weekend for my board game group.
I think the earnestness is really coming from how poor the WH response has been. It is *easy* to squash all of this really quickly by having Trump walk up to a bank of cameras and shoot the shit for a couple minutes. And Trump loves doing that! The fact that he hasn't implies he can't.
One Billion Users by @mmasnick.bsky.social was quite fun, even if I ended up with negative points at the end đ
Oh she said partial scholarship. That's notably more plausible since they hand out some level of partial scholarship quite often as part of a price discrimination scheme.
Yes-ish. Mostly because undergrad admission + full ride scholarship for Stanford is quite difficult to get. *A* pre-med program in the US is relatively easy to get into for a decent student. *That* pre-med program is not.
The more plausible claim would be admission to a pre-med program at Stanford.* But yeah, it is like literally impossible to be admitted to medical school in the US at age 16. *Pre-med is just a biology/anatomy focused undergraduate major and does not translate to going to that uni's med school.
Yeah, the thing that actually happened was that lower level nazis when they had to design race laws to work in the real world looked to Jim Crow pretty heavily. But it wasn't that naziism was inspired by it as an ideological thing.
Free school lunches also have the benefit that eliminating means testing simplifies administration. "Okay kids everyone line up for lunch" is by far the simplest way to do food for a large group of children in a short timeframe.
I do really hope that the specific way it leaks is someone at Walter Reed sees him get brought in and messages Marisa Kabas so she gets to break it.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. I was like "what is there in the plot of Swan Lake that's about like a death being covered up??"
Ohhh. I have been *so freaking confused* about the Swan Lake references.
I am an uncultured brute and have now seen like 4 references to Swan Lake. Can someone explain?
Unfortunately he appears to have been playing music in the Rose-themed-pavement area today bsky.app/profile/anna...
Ah dammit. Les Mis is like total confirmation it's him.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gwj...
Costco at least lets you grab some party trays for the festivities.
Literally have a bottle of champagne that is earmarked for the day.
This is funnily enough setting up the exact nightmare scenario that the Supreme Court allowed in the CASA case. By vacating the injunction because universal injunctions aren't allowed, it is going to spawn thousands of individual suits by importers seeking to block/refund tariffs on them.
