COOLJEN
@cooljenim.bsky.social
Trying to stay sane. Not paid to be here. Here for interesting people & to fight for our Democracy. Swear like a sailor so be forewarned. Soft spot for all animals. If you're expecting "nice" at the expense of my truth, I AM NOT THE ONE TO FOLLOW.
Reposted by COOLJEN
it's in here 👇
![pic of the cover of the Book "The Paranoid Style in Politics" [and other essays] written by Richard Hofstadter](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:v62t5ntdsxngbg3eg2smonjk/bafkreigl2qyvmrk3uk7f3rdaeegoohncli4ktpkcsnfl42i7acsytngbpe@jpeg)
November 21, 2025 at 11:13 PM
it's in here 👇
Reposted by COOLJEN
IJs aren’t even ALJs! They’re technically just attorneys working for DOJ, so they can’t be fired at will, and yet that is EXACTLY what they are doing; citing “Article II” to just fire anyone they deem insufficiently pro-deportation.
As a former ALJ ... ALJ is a terrible system and should never be part of an executive agency.
November 21, 2025 at 11:24 PM
IJs aren’t even ALJs! They’re technically just attorneys working for DOJ, so they can’t be fired at will, and yet that is EXACTLY what they are doing; citing “Article II” to just fire anyone they deem insufficiently pro-deportation.
Reposted by COOLJEN
All I know is that if I’m still practicing I’m raising that issue in every PFR. The problem, of course, would be proving it has an impact in any specific case.
At some point this has got to become a due process issue, right? Lack of a neutral decisionmaker?
November 21, 2025 at 11:23 PM
All I know is that if I’m still practicing I’m raising that issue in every PFR. The problem, of course, would be proving it has an impact in any specific case.
Reposted by COOLJEN
Maybe in 2027 but sure as hell not in 2026. And meanwhile, thanks to a stupid, ill-conceived law from 1996, challenging any of this crap on a systematic basis is nearly impossible. slate.com/news-and-pol...
November 21, 2025 at 11:22 PM
Maybe in 2027 but sure as hell not in 2026. And meanwhile, thanks to a stupid, ill-conceived law from 1996, challenging any of this crap on a systematic basis is nearly impossible. slate.com/news-and-pol...
Reposted by COOLJEN
GJ may not lead to dismissal w/ prejudice, but that's no longer the issue. Rather, it's the competence and credibility of the DOJ and Halligan. So this squirrelly document as I read it just pours oil on the fire. It tries to imply the GJ saw ind #2 but doesn't say so and it looks as if they didn't.
November 21, 2025 at 9:51 PM
GJ may not lead to dismissal w/ prejudice, but that's no longer the issue. Rather, it's the competence and credibility of the DOJ and Halligan. So this squirrelly document as I read it just pours oil on the fire. It tries to imply the GJ saw ind #2 but doesn't say so and it looks as if they didn't.
Reposted by COOLJEN
the record would have to be informing Court of actual facts -- and in this situation making 1000% sure you had it right. But the document i think -- it's very vague--doesn't do that. Instead, it just argues that the (unpresented) 2nd indictment is operative. The blunder on not re-presenting to a new
November 21, 2025 at 9:51 PM
the record would have to be informing Court of actual facts -- and in this situation making 1000% sure you had it right. But the document i think -- it's very vague--doesn't do that. Instead, it just argues that the (unpresented) 2nd indictment is operative. The blunder on not re-presenting to a new