B.H. Talmage
@bhtalmage.bsky.social
Account primarily interested in law. Man behind the account primarily interested in being a dad and disciple of Jesus Christ.
This is how the law should operate. As someone who thinks Bivens was wrongly decided, my biggest problem with it is this passage, which plants the seeds to undermine Illinois’s efforts.
November 5, 2025 at 1:46 PM
This is how the law should operate. As someone who thinks Bivens was wrongly decided, my biggest problem with it is this passage, which plants the seeds to undermine Illinois’s efforts.
As space flight has taken off, undernourishment has fallen. (Note the bump up during COVID as supply chains halted.)
October 30, 2025 at 7:16 PM
As space flight has taken off, undernourishment has fallen. (Note the bump up during COVID as supply chains halted.)
The share of the population in extreme poverty (ie near starvation conditions) has dropped precipitously during that same time frame.
October 30, 2025 at 7:12 PM
The share of the population in extreme poverty (ie near starvation conditions) has dropped precipitously during that same time frame.
Comes from the basic phrase "How came this to be" or "How comes this to be" or by what method or purpose. Here's an example of Shakespeare.
August 11, 2025 at 1:19 PM
Comes from the basic phrase "How came this to be" or "How comes this to be" or by what method or purpose. Here's an example of Shakespeare.
Does this not do it for you?
June 28, 2025 at 6:34 PM
Does this not do it for you?
And now that I've had time to actually look at the opinion, it seems like Kavanaugh is of the same mind.
June 27, 2025 at 5:30 PM
And now that I've had time to actually look at the opinion, it seems like Kavanaugh is of the same mind.
This is Trump on Larry King in 1989.
The one consistent thought that Donald Trump has is that other countries are taking advantage of the US through uneven trade accounts. It is unfortunately also one of his dumbest thoughts (after bleach in veins to kill COVID).
The one consistent thought that Donald Trump has is that other countries are taking advantage of the US through uneven trade accounts. It is unfortunately also one of his dumbest thoughts (after bleach in veins to kill COVID).
April 3, 2025 at 6:29 PM
This is Trump on Larry King in 1989.
The one consistent thought that Donald Trump has is that other countries are taking advantage of the US through uneven trade accounts. It is unfortunately also one of his dumbest thoughts (after bleach in veins to kill COVID).
The one consistent thought that Donald Trump has is that other countries are taking advantage of the US through uneven trade accounts. It is unfortunately also one of his dumbest thoughts (after bleach in veins to kill COVID).
It was so NOT a quid-pro-quo. No one even had the thought it was a quid pro quo. I mean, they even followed up the meeting with a written letter that said, "THIS IS NOT A QUID PRO QUO." How less of a quid pro quo could it be?
February 13, 2025 at 11:11 PM
It was so NOT a quid-pro-quo. No one even had the thought it was a quid pro quo. I mean, they even followed up the meeting with a written letter that said, "THIS IS NOT A QUID PRO QUO." How less of a quid pro quo could it be?
They were permanent residents at the time of his birth. See 1st paragraph and QP.
January 23, 2025 at 9:48 PM
They were permanent residents at the time of his birth. See 1st paragraph and QP.
Agree it’s inconsistent with it. It’s also not in Wong Kim Ark’s holding, which the EO self-consciously avoids by carving away anyone with lawful permanent status.
Again, I think it’s wrong b/c that isn’t the original meaning of 14A. But this is less outlandish than, say, personhood for elephants.
Again, I think it’s wrong b/c that isn’t the original meaning of 14A. But this is less outlandish than, say, personhood for elephants.
January 23, 2025 at 7:22 PM
Agree it’s inconsistent with it. It’s also not in Wong Kim Ark’s holding, which the EO self-consciously avoids by carving away anyone with lawful permanent status.
Again, I think it’s wrong b/c that isn’t the original meaning of 14A. But this is less outlandish than, say, personhood for elephants.
Again, I think it’s wrong b/c that isn’t the original meaning of 14A. But this is less outlandish than, say, personhood for elephants.
I just need to know what underlining "the" implies for the meaning of this order. Third generation textualism, here we come!
January 21, 2025 at 4:08 PM
I just need to know what underlining "the" implies for the meaning of this order. Third generation textualism, here we come!
Blaming oil companies for the Palisades fire is the kind of over reach that is great for stoking anger but has no real logical force.
Pretty sure oil companies weren’t around 5,000 years ago, when the Santa Ana winds and ravaging fires were already doing their thing.
Pretty sure oil companies weren’t around 5,000 years ago, when the Santa Ana winds and ravaging fires were already doing their thing.
January 10, 2025 at 1:17 AM
Blaming oil companies for the Palisades fire is the kind of over reach that is great for stoking anger but has no real logical force.
Pretty sure oil companies weren’t around 5,000 years ago, when the Santa Ana winds and ravaging fires were already doing their thing.
Pretty sure oil companies weren’t around 5,000 years ago, when the Santa Ana winds and ravaging fires were already doing their thing.
Feel like @rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social’s time at Del Chancery makes him imminently qualified to chuckle when people are shocked by an expedited timeline for a closed record appeal.
December 18, 2024 at 6:37 PM
Feel like @rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social’s time at Del Chancery makes him imminently qualified to chuckle when people are shocked by an expedited timeline for a closed record appeal.
An American hat trick in the last 8 mins of the game to steal 3 points in the Champions League.
How you like them apple pies?
How you like them apple pies?
November 27, 2024 at 10:16 PM
An American hat trick in the last 8 mins of the game to steal 3 points in the Champions League.
How you like them apple pies?
How you like them apple pies?
Had never heard of this before and have to say this disclaimer alone sold me on it.
November 22, 2024 at 2:03 PM
Had never heard of this before and have to say this disclaimer alone sold me on it.
Not chaos-y enough since the commentary to the Federal Rules of Evidence basically say exactly that.
Maximum chaos rejoinder would be that empirically we can't get past Descarte's first conclusion, so really, nothing matters; everything & nothing are all in & not in the record as far as we know.
Maximum chaos rejoinder would be that empirically we can't get past Descarte's first conclusion, so really, nothing matters; everything & nothing are all in & not in the record as far as we know.
![Image showing text of commentary to FRE 201, which says:
“In determining the content or applicability of a rule of domestic law, the judge is unrestricted in his investigation and conclusion. He may reject the propositions of either party or of both parties. He may consult the sources of pertinent data to which they refer, or he may refuse to do so. He may make an independent search for persuasive data or rest content with what he has or what the parties present. * * * [T]he parties do no more than to assist; they control no part of the process.” Morgan, Judicial Notice, 57 Harv.L.Rev. 269, 270–271 (1944).
This is the view which should govern judicial access to legislative facts. It renders inappropriate any limitation in the form of indisputability, any formal requirements of notice other than those already inherent in affording opportunity to hear and be heard and exchanging briefs, and any requirement of formal findings at any level. It should, however, leave open the possibility of introducing evidence through regular channels in appropriate situations. See Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 194, 55 S.Ct. 187, 79 L.Ed. 281 (1934), where the cause was remanded for the taking of evidence as to the economic conditions and trade practices underlying the New York Milk Control Law.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:gks7t7c5plsieyi3paopbvzo/bafkreiaczgxi6xrieygoxcwtvq7f36v72ll2loulxxvvfjg4tkwp53657a@jpeg)
November 18, 2024 at 6:08 PM
Not chaos-y enough since the commentary to the Federal Rules of Evidence basically say exactly that.
Maximum chaos rejoinder would be that empirically we can't get past Descarte's first conclusion, so really, nothing matters; everything & nothing are all in & not in the record as far as we know.
Maximum chaos rejoinder would be that empirically we can't get past Descarte's first conclusion, so really, nothing matters; everything & nothing are all in & not in the record as far as we know.