Curtis McBroom
@adlawfan.bsky.social
Immigration and administrative law = fun times
When going on and on about no standing in the Colorado therapist case, the lovely ladies fail to acknowledge that Colorado’s SG backed off from a categorical no‑standing position and Justice Sotomayor definitely leaned toward acknowledging that standing could be a valid issue in the case.
October 13, 2025 at 2:17 PM
When going on and on about no standing in the Colorado therapist case, the lovely ladies fail to acknowledge that Colorado’s SG backed off from a categorical no‑standing position and Justice Sotomayor definitely leaned toward acknowledging that standing could be a valid issue in the case.
And you as a professor could learn from listening to Professor Barclay on this podcast if you have an open mind and note how Erwin Chemerinsky refuses to acknowledge or grapple with the facts when they cut against his position
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/w...
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/w...
Do Bans on Conversion Therapy Violate the First Amendment?
Podcast Episode · We the People · 10/09/2025 · 1h 2m
podcasts.apple.com
October 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
And you as a professor could learn from listening to Professor Barclay on this podcast if you have an open mind and note how Erwin Chemerinsky refuses to acknowledge or grapple with the facts when they cut against his position
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/w...
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/w...
@leonfresco.bsky.social, the only thing keeping the Bloomberg Law podcast from having full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome
October 10, 2025 at 12:25 PM
@leonfresco.bsky.social, the only thing keeping the Bloomberg Law podcast from having full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome
2 of those were from the current court. Returning to courts of the past would mean more rulings on just vibes because they were less concerned with the text of a statute than they were with the end result they wished to get to
October 9, 2025 at 3:25 PM
2 of those were from the current court. Returning to courts of the past would mean more rulings on just vibes because they were less concerned with the text of a statute than they were with the end result they wished to get to
On the Bloomberg Law podcast you said white conservative Christian’s can only win before the Court. Not so. We’ve got the Louisiana Ten Commandments case, the Oklahoma religious charter school case, Obergefell…
October 9, 2025 at 1:13 PM
On the Bloomberg Law podcast you said white conservative Christian’s can only win before the Court. Not so. We’ve got the Louisiana Ten Commandments case, the Oklahoma religious charter school case, Obergefell…
The War Powers Act requires:
1. The President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to hostilities
2. Has a 60-day limit and
3. Congress can vote to compel the President to withdraw troops or stop hostilities
2/2
1. The President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to hostilities
2. Has a 60-day limit and
3. Congress can vote to compel the President to withdraw troops or stop hostilities
2/2
June 22, 2025 at 2:01 PM
The War Powers Act requires:
1. The President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to hostilities
2. Has a 60-day limit and
3. Congress can vote to compel the President to withdraw troops or stop hostilities
2/2
1. The President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to hostilities
2. Has a 60-day limit and
3. Congress can vote to compel the President to withdraw troops or stop hostilities
2/2
Curious what the valid basis would be. Whether we like it or not concerning other executive branch abuses of power, preemptive or preventive strikes (e.g., stopping Iran from acquiring nukes) is within his authority without congressional approval. It’s not unlimited and can’t go on forever /1
June 22, 2025 at 2:01 PM
Curious what the valid basis would be. Whether we like it or not concerning other executive branch abuses of power, preemptive or preventive strikes (e.g., stopping Iran from acquiring nukes) is within his authority without congressional approval. It’s not unlimited and can’t go on forever /1
But trust me, I’m not missing anything by you blocking me over there other than correcting you like I did this time. I think I’ll live and’s there’s plenty of other boobs to correct over there that think their important
March 6, 2025 at 11:03 PM
But trust me, I’m not missing anything by you blocking me over there other than correcting you like I did this time. I think I’ll live and’s there’s plenty of other boobs to correct over there that think their important
Also on the other site, Mr. Siskind is a big ole beyotch who can’t even stand to be corrected when he’s been proven to be incorrect. I’d be embarrassed to work for your firm
March 6, 2025 at 10:28 PM
Also on the other site, Mr. Siskind is a big ole beyotch who can’t even stand to be corrected when he’s been proven to be incorrect. I’d be embarrassed to work for your firm
Dahlia and this episode’s guests just can’t take it that biased journalists can’t defame the likes of Trump or that the LA Times would dare to pull back from only reporting from the left despite the fact that wasn’t working for them as a business model 🙄
December 21, 2024 at 11:07 PM
Dahlia and this episode’s guests just can’t take it that biased journalists can’t defame the likes of Trump or that the LA Times would dare to pull back from only reporting from the left despite the fact that wasn’t working for them as a business model 🙄
Umm, you haven’t blocked me over here. Just in case you want to get ahead of the game
December 16, 2024 at 9:46 PM
Umm, you haven’t blocked me over here. Just in case you want to get ahead of the game
Maybe it was less of me picking fights over here in the land of happy and it was more of immigration advocates jumping the gun and assuming something that was not supported by the known facts
December 13, 2024 at 5:33 PM
Maybe it was less of me picking fights over here in the land of happy and it was more of immigration advocates jumping the gun and assuming something that was not supported by the known facts
I actually did bother to check but didn’t see anything. So I retract my snarky commentary as it sillies to you. Although I still don’t see it but I’ll take your word for it because even though we disagree on a lot you’re not a liar
December 13, 2024 at 2:56 AM
I actually did bother to check but didn’t see anything. So I retract my snarky commentary as it sillies to you. Although I still don’t see it but I’ll take your word for it because even though we disagree on a lot you’re not a liar
I can answer that. Likely we won’t hear from them because their advocacy justifies missing the mark. Surely it will apply to some other situation in the near future. Then they’ll be right about hate against migrants
December 13, 2024 at 2:20 AM
I can answer that. Likely we won’t hear from them because their advocacy justifies missing the mark. Surely it will apply to some other situation in the near future. Then they’ll be right about hate against migrants
Will Gabe and @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social retract their apparently incorrect assumptions now that the facts have began to emerge showing the stabbed migrants were likely gang members…who were stabbed by other migrant gang members www.foxnews.com/politics/fat...
Fatal migrant gang stabbing leaves one teen dead
New York police are investigating a fatal immigrant gang stabbing in Lower Manhattan that left one teenager dead and another injured.
www.foxnews.com
December 13, 2024 at 2:17 AM
Will Gabe and @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social retract their apparently incorrect assumptions now that the facts have began to emerge showing the stabbed migrants were likely gang members…who were stabbed by other migrant gang members www.foxnews.com/politics/fat...
It is and I’m done here
December 10, 2024 at 10:06 PM
It is and I’m done here
Wasn’t it always this way?
December 10, 2024 at 3:25 PM
Wasn’t it always this way?
Nice. You want others to do your work for you, and based on your demonstrated bias you will likely ignore it. I have better things to do with my time so you can do your own work and look it up yourself.
December 10, 2024 at 12:17 PM
Nice. You want others to do your work for you, and based on your demonstrated bias you will likely ignore it. I have better things to do with my time so you can do your own work and look it up yourself.
Nice to see you’re a sane person and not at all blinded by bias. And they don’t have to be “Trumpists” to refute the uncorroborated and anonymous claims. Start with Medal of Honor recipient David Bellavia who ran Vets for Freedom with Hegseth, then at least 100 Navy SEALs, but there are more
December 10, 2024 at 3:36 AM
Nice to see you’re a sane person and not at all blinded by bias. And they don’t have to be “Trumpists” to refute the uncorroborated and anonymous claims. Start with Medal of Honor recipient David Bellavia who ran Vets for Freedom with Hegseth, then at least 100 Navy SEALs, but there are more
Reported from who David? It’s directly refuted by reputable people putting their names on the record unlike the sources you’re ascribing credibility to. Can’t wait for you to have egg on your face after this but you’ll likely ignore it and act like you never assumed unsubstantiated claims were fact
December 9, 2024 at 11:44 PM
Reported from who David? It’s directly refuted by reputable people putting their names on the record unlike the sources you’re ascribing credibility to. Can’t wait for you to have egg on your face after this but you’ll likely ignore it and act like you never assumed unsubstantiated claims were fact
The Tennessee transgender case episode is a nice reprieve from reality where we ignore facts & the lack of sufficient scientific support to reside in our own liberal la-la land. Then we continue that behavior discussing other cases too. It’s not a fact free zone but we do take short breaks from them
December 9, 2024 at 11:40 PM
The Tennessee transgender case episode is a nice reprieve from reality where we ignore facts & the lack of sufficient scientific support to reside in our own liberal la-la land. Then we continue that behavior discussing other cases too. It’s not a fact free zone but we do take short breaks from them
I hear them discuss it in complete detail but then they do what the mainstream media wants to avoid, which is providing on the record and the credible people who absolutely refute almost everything. That leaves fair parole realizing he cheated on his wife but he’s made amends. 👎 trust in media
December 6, 2024 at 1:50 PM
I hear them discuss it in complete detail but then they do what the mainstream media wants to avoid, which is providing on the record and the credible people who absolutely refute almost everything. That leaves fair parole realizing he cheated on his wife but he’s made amends. 👎 trust in media
Finished up the podcast from yesterday and normal and fair people will likely all agree that you owe Pete Hegseth an apology after characterizing him in the nefarious light you did simply because you have a lifelong grudge against anything Trump. Here are your unwarranted words 4/4
December 6, 2024 at 1:15 PM
Finished up the podcast from yesterday and normal and fair people will likely all agree that you owe Pete Hegseth an apology after characterizing him in the nefarious light you did simply because you have a lifelong grudge against anything Trump. Here are your unwarranted words 4/4
When you exhibit that type of behavior I guess you are working for the right media outlet if you want people to lose trust in your work /3
December 6, 2024 at 1:14 PM
When you exhibit that type of behavior I guess you are working for the right media outlet if you want people to lose trust in your work /3