acamp128.bsky.social
@acamp128.bsky.social
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
first as tragedy then as farce. then as farce again. then farce one more time. a little more farce after that. then some farce. and then another farce and more farce after
July 11, 2024 at 6:10 PM
first as tragedy then as farce. then as farce again. then farce one more time. a little more farce after that. then some farce. and then another farce and more farce after
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
everyone was right to attack his character and good faith at the time and they're right to attack it now. Ilan Wurman is a man of low character, a racist fascist pig. anyone still friends with him in light of this obvious truth is also of low character
I’m not an expert in this area—I’m just an insurance law nerd—so I’m not qualified to answer. It’s a great question for Ilan. My main point is that too many people aren’t asking him this but instead attacking his character, intelligence, or good faith.
July 11, 2025 at 4:43 PM
everyone was right to attack his character and good faith at the time and they're right to attack it now. Ilan Wurman is a man of low character, a racist fascist pig. anyone still friends with him in light of this obvious truth is also of low character
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
there are good & worthwhile historical & legal arguments for why the unitary executive is nonsense but to my mind the most straightforward argument is that it makes no logical sense that the president has absolute removal power over the people whose job it is to keep the executive branch accountable
The Inspector General system is basically broken now. Most IGs have been fired, most positions remain vacant. Those who remain or would take the job pose no risk to holding the regime accountable.
Congress added more barriers to Trump firing IGs after his first term. He just ignored them.
Congress added more barriers to Trump firing IGs after his first term. He just ignored them.
October 21, 2025 at 10:47 PM
there are good & worthwhile historical & legal arguments for why the unitary executive is nonsense but to my mind the most straightforward argument is that it makes no logical sense that the president has absolute removal power over the people whose job it is to keep the executive branch accountable
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
I cannot speak on Opus Dei as an expert, but I will take this opportunity to share my work on the Alitos and their flags and what they signify. defector.com/two-bad-neig...
Two Bad Neighbors | Defector
“You know what I want?” Martha-Ann Alito asked a stranger who had briefly flattered her at a dinner for the Supreme Court Historical Society last week. “I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, because I ...
defector.com
October 17, 2025 at 4:26 AM
I cannot speak on Opus Dei as an expert, but I will take this opportunity to share my work on the Alitos and their flags and what they signify. defector.com/two-bad-neig...
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
More judges speak to the press (the NYT) about what a disaster the Supreme Court (specifically the shadow docket) has been - “incredibly demoralizing & troubling”; a “judicial crisis”; a “slap in the face to district courts.” www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/u...
October 11, 2025 at 11:04 AM
More judges speak to the press (the NYT) about what a disaster the Supreme Court (specifically the shadow docket) has been - “incredibly demoralizing & troubling”; a “judicial crisis”; a “slap in the face to district courts.” www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/u...
@fleerultra.bsky.social @aywarhiannon.bsky.social @notalawyer.bsky.social I have my disagreements with Baude and Bray but I’m curious what you all think about this paper they just announced (I’m less personally familiar with Levy’s work)
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Remedies for a Constitutional Crisis
<p><span>In a crisis of authority, where it is unclear whether executive officials will comply with judicial decisions, the courts may seem to have limited reme
papers.ssrn.com
September 29, 2025 at 6:55 PM
@fleerultra.bsky.social @aywarhiannon.bsky.social @notalawyer.bsky.social I have my disagreements with Baude and Bray but I’m curious what you all think about this paper they just announced (I’m less personally familiar with Levy’s work)
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
For our October issue I wrote about the Roberts Court for its 20th anniversary, how it helped lead us to the current crisis, and what should be done about it:
The Roberts Court Is Winning Its War on American Democracy
Chief Justice John Roberts has now overseen 20 years of increasingly illiberal rulings by the Supreme Court.
newrepublic.com
September 22, 2025 at 6:32 PM
For our October issue I wrote about the Roberts Court for its 20th anniversary, how it helped lead us to the current crisis, and what should be done about it:
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
Ah yes, because the problem worthy of public debate is what we *call* it when #SCOTUS decides major issues without full briefing, argument, or written opinions—not, you know, what the Court is actually *doing* in these cases.
news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/...
news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/...
Kavanaugh Pushes New Label for Supreme Court Emergency Docket
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is doing his best to rebrand the Supreme Court’s emergency docket — known colloquially as the “shadow docket” by another name.
news.bloomberglaw.com
September 4, 2025 at 8:55 PM
Ah yes, because the problem worthy of public debate is what we *call* it when #SCOTUS decides major issues without full briefing, argument, or written opinions—not, you know, what the Court is actually *doing* in these cases.
news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/...
news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/...
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
new piece from on the 60th anniversary of the voting rights act, and what the law has meant for american democracy www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/o...
Opinion | Donald Trump and John Roberts Have a Lot in Common
www.nytimes.com
August 6, 2025 at 11:43 AM
new piece from on the 60th anniversary of the voting rights act, and what the law has meant for american democracy www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/o...
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
Law school isn’t hard enough.
WSJ claimed the Trump–Epstein article was an “exclusive.” But what if I told you they fully intended to show it to people? storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
July 18, 2025 at 11:21 PM
Law school isn’t hard enough.
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
Apologies, the previous chart was incorrect. I missed that SCOTUS granted emergency relief in Murthy v. Missouri after the appellate court's stay. I also missed FDA v. Alliance.
The updated rate of lifted injunctions for the Biden admin is 10% (2 of 21), not 0%.
The updated rate of lifted injunctions for the Biden admin is 10% (2 of 21), not 0%.
July 9, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Apologies, the previous chart was incorrect. I missed that SCOTUS granted emergency relief in Murthy v. Missouri after the appellate court's stay. I also missed FDA v. Alliance.
The updated rate of lifted injunctions for the Biden admin is 10% (2 of 21), not 0%.
The updated rate of lifted injunctions for the Biden admin is 10% (2 of 21), not 0%.
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
My latest premium newsletter is about how the Supreme Court is using roundabout methods to enshrine right-wing moral panics into constitutional law.
The Moral Panic Exception to the Constitution
A rule has emerged from the incoherence of the Supreme Court's recent decisions
stringinamaze.net
July 11, 2025 at 2:28 PM
My latest premium newsletter is about how the Supreme Court is using roundabout methods to enshrine right-wing moral panics into constitutional law.
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
I think Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissents are an important exception to the "Supreme Court dissents don't matter" rule of thumb, because she is using them not to argue with the conservative justices, but to explain to the public that the conservative justices are liars and in the tank for Trump
Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Telling the Truth About the Supreme Court
The task of interpreting the law is inherently “political.” But no justice has been this comfortable saying so in public.
ballsandstrikes.org
July 10, 2025 at 6:39 PM
I think Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissents are an important exception to the "Supreme Court dissents don't matter" rule of thumb, because she is using them not to argue with the conservative justices, but to explain to the public that the conservative justices are liars and in the tank for Trump
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
Again, the administration’s basic strategy is to use SCOTUS to bail it out of inconvenient district court injunctions against doing probably-to-almost-certainly illegal things. Then it does the things. Then later by the time the merits are considered, the damage has been done. Repeat.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court *allows* the Trump administration to implement large-scale layoffs and reorganization plans across the federal government, despite a pending legal challenge. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissents. #SCOTUS
www.documentcloud.org/documents/25...
www.documentcloud.org/documents/25...
July 8, 2025 at 8:36 PM
Again, the administration’s basic strategy is to use SCOTUS to bail it out of inconvenient district court injunctions against doing probably-to-almost-certainly illegal things. Then it does the things. Then later by the time the merits are considered, the damage has been done. Repeat.
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
now we're talking
Paramount just paid Trump a bribe for merger approval. When Democrats retake power, I’ll be first in line calling for federal charges. In the meantime, state prosecutors should make the corporate execs who sold out our democracy answer in court, today.
Paramount agrees to pay Trump $16 million, clearing way for multibillion-dollar merger
July 2, 2025 at 2:16 PM
now we're talking
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
i'm not going to post anything more about Trump v. CASA because it is not the most important thing in the world, but I respectfully submit that this paragraph alone justifies all the derision directed at the Court and Justice Barrett
![Finally, the Government must show a likelihood that it will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434–435, 129 S.Ct. 1749. When a federal court enters a universal injunction against the Government, it “improper[ly] intru[des]” on “a coordinate branch of the Government” and prevents the Government from enforcing its policies against nonparties. INS v. Legalization Assistance Project of Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, 510 U.S. 1301, 1306, 114 S.Ct. 422, 126 L.Ed.2d 410 (1993) (O'Connor, J., in chambers). That is enough to justify interim relief.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ata7hvtdry3oi7b2yaqmbwz4/bafkreicscpnlqs4ywaphclypxal2qorckzelwbt5j3pi26c7ygft2t6tym@jpeg)
June 28, 2025 at 7:30 PM
i'm not going to post anything more about Trump v. CASA because it is not the most important thing in the world, but I respectfully submit that this paragraph alone justifies all the derision directed at the Court and Justice Barrett
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
Rule 23(b)(2) class actions may be the procedurally proper way to achieve complete, nationwide relief. But the underlying premise is that the Court will apply the Rule 23(a) factors evenhandedly. The dissenters are furious because repeatedly, the Court has not done so
It's bad, but thankfully not THAT bad. Class actions remain available (although have their own problems/limitations), and the Court defers on whether an injunction with a nationwide scope may be appropriate to grant to a state in some circumstances, like with the birthright citizenship order here.
The main upshot of today's birthright citizenship ruling (that I'm still making way through) seems to be that each person victimized by an unconstitutional Trump order has to pretty much sue individually.
Trump is free to act unconstitutionally to everybody individually.
Trump is free to act unconstitutionally to everybody individually.
June 27, 2025 at 2:29 PM
Rule 23(b)(2) class actions may be the procedurally proper way to achieve complete, nationwide relief. But the underlying premise is that the Court will apply the Rule 23(a) factors evenhandedly. The dissenters are furious because repeatedly, the Court has not done so
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
these people think you're stupid and hold you in absolute fucking contempt
June 27, 2025 at 2:42 PM
these people think you're stupid and hold you in absolute fucking contempt
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
this court says that allowing EPA to regulate carbon emissions is a "major question" that demands congressional debate. but allowing the president to, with a flick of the wrist, end a straightforward constitutional right is something that must be allowed to stand?
June 27, 2025 at 2:42 PM
this court says that allowing EPA to regulate carbon emissions is a "major question" that demands congressional debate. but allowing the president to, with a flick of the wrist, end a straightforward constitutional right is something that must be allowed to stand?
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
Thinking about the tut-tutting Democratic politicians who spent their two years in power warning that Supreme Court expansion was too radical an idea to even think about taking seriously. You absolute fucking rubes. You gigantic, credulous losers. I hope you are ashamed of yourselves today.
June 27, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Thinking about the tut-tutting Democratic politicians who spent their two years in power warning that Supreme Court expansion was too radical an idea to even think about taking seriously. You absolute fucking rubes. You gigantic, credulous losers. I hope you are ashamed of yourselves today.
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
according to conservatives on the court, the constitution does not protect your right to your own body but does enable the government to ship you off to a foreign gulag without any hope of return
NEW: The Supreme Court's conservatives halt a preliminary injunction that had restricted the Trump administration's ability to rapidly deport migrants to "third countries" where they have never lived and where allegedly face torture. All three liberals dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
![DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v.
D.V.D., ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[June 23, 2025]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON
and by her referred to the Court is granted. The April 18,
2025, preliminary injunction of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 25–cv–
10676, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is
timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall
terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted,
the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of the Court.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala,
even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to
face torture there. Then, in clear violation of a court order,
it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical
personnel. An attentive District Court’s timely intervention only narrowly prevented a third set of unlawful removals to Libya.
Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreietxy2onxpw2fhgui4rl6cuor52zfdsq5dirhspuslk7tqxfq4rty@jpeg)
June 23, 2025 at 8:42 PM
according to conservatives on the court, the constitution does not protect your right to your own body but does enable the government to ship you off to a foreign gulag without any hope of return
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
I need all of #lawsky to see this video from a Colorado appeals court livestream yesterday. I am in actual tears. Sound *incredibly* on, the subtitles will not help.
June 19, 2025 at 2:47 AM
I need all of #lawsky to see this video from a Colorado appeals court livestream yesterday. I am in actual tears. Sound *incredibly* on, the subtitles will not help.
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
the lesson of this isn't that tucker carlson is actually good but that you should ask these people basic factual questions instead of bullshit about politics
WATCH: “You’re a U.S. senator and you don’t know anything about the country you want to topple.”
Tucker Carlson embarrasses @sentedcruz as he pushes for war with Iran
Tucker Carlson embarrasses @sentedcruz as he pushes for war with Iran
June 18, 2025 at 2:52 AM
the lesson of this isn't that tucker carlson is actually good but that you should ask these people basic factual questions instead of bullshit about politics
Reposted by acamp128.bsky.social
oh is this just a distraction? is that it? a distraction? for rubes? are you the smartest little birthday boy in the whole applebees? is that it? are you three steps ahead? with your mind chess? in your little birthday boy suit? do you have it all figured out? are you mommy’s special buddy?
ooouuuuuu the girls are fightingggg……
Trump suggest that Elon has "Trump derangement syndrome"
June 5, 2025 at 8:46 PM
oh is this just a distraction? is that it? a distraction? for rubes? are you the smartest little birthday boy in the whole applebees? is that it? are you three steps ahead? with your mind chess? in your little birthday boy suit? do you have it all figured out? are you mommy’s special buddy?