armadillojackal.bsky.social
@armadillojackal.bsky.social
Steve Sachs
November 20, 2025 at 9:31 PM
Steve Sachs
Imagine not being able to eat horse in America.
November 11, 2025 at 12:32 AM
Imagine not being able to eat horse in America.
It’s not a reserve they are supposed to tap in an emergency—they already tapped that. They’re appealing the order to the extent it orders them to move funds from other programs to fully fund SNAP.
The order below was completely lawless; an embarrassment. Surely in such cases, SCOTUS should stay it.
The order below was completely lawless; an embarrassment. Surely in such cases, SCOTUS should stay it.
November 8, 2025 at 12:49 AM
It’s not a reserve they are supposed to tap in an emergency—they already tapped that. They’re appealing the order to the extent it orders them to move funds from other programs to fully fund SNAP.
The order below was completely lawless; an embarrassment. Surely in such cases, SCOTUS should stay it.
The order below was completely lawless; an embarrassment. Surely in such cases, SCOTUS should stay it.
They are not appealing the order that they use contingency funds to partially fund, it the order entered yesterday that they fully fund via taking funds from the school lunch program. It’s that order that I take issue with as dubious.
November 7, 2025 at 9:06 PM
They are not appealing the order that they use contingency funds to partially fund, it the order entered yesterday that they fully fund via taking funds from the school lunch program. It’s that order that I take issue with as dubious.
The order in the SNAP case, insofar as it requires the administration to take money from other programs to fully fund SNAP for November, is dubious too though.
November 7, 2025 at 8:41 PM
The order in the SNAP case, insofar as it requires the administration to take money from other programs to fully fund SNAP for November, is dubious too though.
He did and honestly it’s terrible. I figure you’ll disagree, but it completely misunderstands arbitrary and capricious review in a stunningly incompetent way.
November 7, 2025 at 1:29 AM
He did and honestly it’s terrible. I figure you’ll disagree, but it completely misunderstands arbitrary and capricious review in a stunningly incompetent way.
It’s best not to take anybody who thinks Biden v. Nebraska was wrongly decided on the merits seriously when they comment on the IEEPA case. I struggle to think of anybody on the left who is consistent here. Can think of plenty on the right.
November 5, 2025 at 9:17 PM
It’s best not to take anybody who thinks Biden v. Nebraska was wrongly decided on the merits seriously when they comment on the IEEPA case. I struggle to think of anybody on the left who is consistent here. Can think of plenty on the right.
It’s not on PACER either fwiw.
October 23, 2025 at 9:58 PM
It’s not on PACER either fwiw.
Don’t feel pressed to get the complaint. There isn’t one. He just filed a TRO on the docket.
October 23, 2025 at 9:58 PM
Don’t feel pressed to get the complaint. There isn’t one. He just filed a TRO on the docket.
No, this has been in the works for years starting under the previous administration. This is the result of the training provisions in our 2017 arms sale for planes to Qatar. Which is statutorily authorized. And this is how we normally meet training requirements in such agreements.
October 10, 2025 at 9:07 PM
No, this has been in the works for years starting under the previous administration. This is the result of the training provisions in our 2017 arms sale for planes to Qatar. Which is statutorily authorized. And this is how we normally meet training requirements in such agreements.
Habeas corpus, they call it the Great Writ, folks, but honestly, it’s not so great, a TREMENDOUS waste of time, believe me!
October 8, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Habeas corpus, they call it the Great Writ, folks, but honestly, it’s not so great, a TREMENDOUS waste of time, believe me!
Meanwhile, if we consider that not every infantry MTOE slot can be filled by a M (at least lately due to recruiting shortages, though they’ve been improving), then we see that readiness is better by allowing F. But conservatives would fight that premise.
October 7, 2025 at 5:08 PM
Meanwhile, if we consider that not every infantry MTOE slot can be filled by a M (at least lately due to recruiting shortages, though they’ve been improving), then we see that readiness is better by allowing F. But conservatives would fight that premise.
Part of the issue is that nobody can agree to discuss with established and correct premises. If we take a discrete issue like females in the infantry, there’s no doubt that readiness would be greater if every infantry MTOE personnel slot could be filled by a male. But left would fight that premise.
October 7, 2025 at 5:07 PM
Part of the issue is that nobody can agree to discuss with established and correct premises. If we take a discrete issue like females in the infantry, there’s no doubt that readiness would be greater if every infantry MTOE personnel slot could be filled by a male. But left would fight that premise.
SCOTUS buys deference, not any particular empirical studies on the effects of DEI on readiness, because there aren’t very many good ones and results are mixed.
Hegseth’s arguments are as strong or weak as any previous argument for DEI in the military.
Hegseth’s arguments are as strong or weak as any previous argument for DEI in the military.
October 7, 2025 at 4:53 PM
SCOTUS buys deference, not any particular empirical studies on the effects of DEI on readiness, because there aren’t very many good ones and results are mixed.
Hegseth’s arguments are as strong or weak as any previous argument for DEI in the military.
Hegseth’s arguments are as strong or weak as any previous argument for DEI in the military.
I would imagine it reflects the fact that in the grand scheme of things, a federal district judge has enormous power in equity that’s not really commensurate with the position. Not that’s it’s not a prestigious position, but their equitable power is huge.
October 5, 2025 at 5:05 PM
I would imagine it reflects the fact that in the grand scheme of things, a federal district judge has enormous power in equity that’s not really commensurate with the position. Not that’s it’s not a prestigious position, but their equitable power is huge.
The idea that Chief Justice Roberts made up this principle is laughably wrong. The structural argument has been around much, much longer.
October 3, 2025 at 2:31 AM
The idea that Chief Justice Roberts made up this principle is laughably wrong. The structural argument has been around much, much longer.
There’s a lot of context here about how conservative student groups are treated on campuses (and not just by other students but also faculty and staff). If we also assign all that context to the hypothetical liberal group, I think we would be hearing about this.
October 2, 2025 at 7:57 PM
There’s a lot of context here about how conservative student groups are treated on campuses (and not just by other students but also faculty and staff). If we also assign all that context to the hypothetical liberal group, I think we would be hearing about this.
Well we’ll see what happens, it’s a choose your own adventure story. But I figure SCOTUS would like to avoid resolving the fed exemption question. If they rule against trump here and he tries again without cause, it’s likely the adventure he’s chosen will be SCOTUS finding a fed exemption.
October 1, 2025 at 8:33 PM
Well we’ll see what happens, it’s a choose your own adventure story. But I figure SCOTUS would like to avoid resolving the fed exemption question. If they rule against trump here and he tries again without cause, it’s likely the adventure he’s chosen will be SCOTUS finding a fed exemption.
And indeed if SCOTUS rules for Cook saying Trump didn’t have cause, and fired her for cause, and didn’t purport to fire her because removal restrictions are unlawful, the no stay of reinstatement here makes sense as opposed to the others.
October 1, 2025 at 8:28 PM
And indeed if SCOTUS rules for Cook saying Trump didn’t have cause, and fired her for cause, and didn’t purport to fire her because removal restrictions are unlawful, the no stay of reinstatement here makes sense as opposed to the others.
How is it only if they side with Trump? The court doesn’t have to consider the constitutionality of the for-cause removal restriction if the parties don’t raise it. Maybe Trump admin has now but they didn’t below.
October 1, 2025 at 8:26 PM
How is it only if they side with Trump? The court doesn’t have to consider the constitutionality of the for-cause removal restriction if the parties don’t raise it. Maybe Trump admin has now but they didn’t below.
Isn’t this case about for-cause removal? If so, the court doesn’t really need to address a functionalist distinction here.
October 1, 2025 at 7:56 PM
Isn’t this case about for-cause removal? If so, the court doesn’t really need to address a functionalist distinction here.
It’s been a mess for a while. I mean, can you believe that four Justices dissented in Citizens United?
September 23, 2025 at 4:55 AM
It’s been a mess for a while. I mean, can you believe that four Justices dissented in Citizens United?
As a thought experiment: if over time we turned the FTC into essentially the Department of Defense, nobody serious would be saying a stay would be inappropriate because of the HE precedent.
September 23, 2025 at 1:34 AM
As a thought experiment: if over time we turned the FTC into essentially the Department of Defense, nobody serious would be saying a stay would be inappropriate because of the HE precedent.
Now, I doubt SCOTUS preserves HE, but it is obviously true that the FTC does more now than it did then.
September 23, 2025 at 1:32 AM
Now, I doubt SCOTUS preserves HE, but it is obviously true that the FTC does more now than it did then.
We didn’t have reinstatement as a remedy in HE, and that’s a QP here, so that’s an independent reason SCOTUS could stay. Separately, some legal scholars have pointed out that you don’t need to overturn HE to determine that this FTC can’t have removal protections.
September 23, 2025 at 1:31 AM
We didn’t have reinstatement as a remedy in HE, and that’s a QP here, so that’s an independent reason SCOTUS could stay. Separately, some legal scholars have pointed out that you don’t need to overturn HE to determine that this FTC can’t have removal protections.