Elijah
@elijahemery.bsky.social
Aspiring Space Cowboy, Only Living Boy in New York. Formerly reading Lasch, now Columbia Law
By one vote, according to the records
December 3, 2025 at 12:48 AM
By one vote, according to the records
In terms of these demands: the EC doesn’t actually need a constitutional amendment (popular interstate voter compact) though that is possible, the senate can’t really be abolished as a governing body based on article V constraints. It could have its responsibilities dramatically shrunk via amendment
November 29, 2025 at 5:54 PM
In terms of these demands: the EC doesn’t actually need a constitutional amendment (popular interstate voter compact) though that is possible, the senate can’t really be abolished as a governing body based on article V constraints. It could have its responsibilities dramatically shrunk via amendment
Definitely how I feel personally. I’ve talked to Rana about this, he’s an amazing guy, former professor of mine
November 29, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Definitely how I feel personally. I’ve talked to Rana about this, he’s an amazing guy, former professor of mine
Should still be eliminated. Basic point is that the American constitution is very interpretation-centered and is thus flexible enough to allow major changes w/o formal amendment
November 29, 2025 at 5:07 PM
Should still be eliminated. Basic point is that the American constitution is very interpretation-centered and is thus flexible enough to allow major changes w/o formal amendment
IMO the pardon power probably is more restrictive than people think. For example, I doubt that the president could pardon himself
November 29, 2025 at 5:06 PM
IMO the pardon power probably is more restrictive than people think. For example, I doubt that the president could pardon himself
I think also because of how the right switched from utilization of constitutional mechanisms (ex, senate obstructionism) to subversion of those mechanisms. The broad left of center has more cause to agitate for respecting the constitution under these conditions
November 29, 2025 at 5:04 PM
I think also because of how the right switched from utilization of constitutional mechanisms (ex, senate obstructionism) to subversion of those mechanisms. The broad left of center has more cause to agitate for respecting the constitution under these conditions
There was indeed (and remains) discrimination against Mizrahim, but their personal situation in Israel is far better than it was in the Arab world
November 28, 2025 at 4:57 AM
There was indeed (and remains) discrimination against Mizrahim, but their personal situation in Israel is far better than it was in the Arab world
I think it is less this and more the fact that people’s grandparents were brutally expelled from their countries by the people who lived next door. It is difficult to overcome that type of personal trauma
November 28, 2025 at 4:55 AM
I think it is less this and more the fact that people’s grandparents were brutally expelled from their countries by the people who lived next door. It is difficult to overcome that type of personal trauma
This is not to defend what contemporary Israel, or even Israel during the Nakba did, the point is just that it’s not easy to see alternatives looking backward to the problems at the time
November 28, 2025 at 4:41 AM
This is not to defend what contemporary Israel, or even Israel during the Nakba did, the point is just that it’s not easy to see alternatives looking backward to the problems at the time
What would you have suggested be done in the late 40s, considering that a binational state was not on the table and millions of Jews were living in refugee camps in Europe
November 28, 2025 at 4:40 AM
What would you have suggested be done in the late 40s, considering that a binational state was not on the table and millions of Jews were living in refugee camps in Europe
The Khazars were actually Russian btw
November 28, 2025 at 4:38 AM
The Khazars were actually Russian btw
Awesome point, OP. Would love to have whatever you’re having
November 28, 2025 at 4:37 AM
Awesome point, OP. Would love to have whatever you’re having
What is this a reference to?
November 28, 2025 at 4:36 AM
What is this a reference to?
In addition the state-centered elements didn’t gain dominance until the holocaust, in large part because there was an assumption that if immigration patterns continued Jews would become a majority in the 1970s. The holocaust made a (relatively) peaceful majority impossible while leading to refugees
November 28, 2025 at 4:33 AM
In addition the state-centered elements didn’t gain dominance until the holocaust, in large part because there was an assumption that if immigration patterns continued Jews would become a majority in the 1970s. The holocaust made a (relatively) peaceful majority impossible while leading to refugees
It’s part of her book tour route
November 18, 2025 at 10:46 PM
It’s part of her book tour route
I think just in Nashville
November 18, 2025 at 10:45 PM
I think just in Nashville
TL:dr, Bush v. Gore announced to the world that the court feels it has no need to settle disputes in accordance with law, but can single out particular cases to be settled outside of it. I think that is incredibly destructive to the concept of placing the state under law, which is vital to democracy
November 17, 2025 at 2:45 AM
TL:dr, Bush v. Gore announced to the world that the court feels it has no need to settle disputes in accordance with law, but can single out particular cases to be settled outside of it. I think that is incredibly destructive to the concept of placing the state under law, which is vital to democracy
Essentially, the court does not have the authority to cabin the precedential value of cases temporally. Bush v. Gore did exactly that, which opened the door to a lot of the machinations we see now on the shadow docket, by separating dispute resolution and law declaration
November 17, 2025 at 2:40 AM
Essentially, the court does not have the authority to cabin the precedential value of cases temporally. Bush v. Gore did exactly that, which opened the door to a lot of the machinations we see now on the shadow docket, by separating dispute resolution and law declaration
I personally find Dred Scott much more morally abhorrent and more consequential, and also think it’s bad law (i.e., I agree that it is the court’s worst ever decision). Simultaneously, it, unlike Bush v. Gore, was a *legal* decision, which speaks to one reason why Bush v. Gore is uniquely bad
November 17, 2025 at 2:36 AM
I personally find Dred Scott much more morally abhorrent and more consequential, and also think it’s bad law (i.e., I agree that it is the court’s worst ever decision). Simultaneously, it, unlike Bush v. Gore, was a *legal* decision, which speaks to one reason why Bush v. Gore is uniquely bad
Say what you will about other rulings, but the court at least claimed to be declaring the law, rather than announcing to the world that they were not doing that
November 17, 2025 at 2:05 AM
Say what you will about other rulings, but the court at least claimed to be declaring the law, rather than announcing to the world that they were not doing that
One argument for it being the worst is that the court explicitly said it has no precedential value. That is not how legal rulings work!
November 17, 2025 at 2:03 AM
One argument for it being the worst is that the court explicitly said it has no precedential value. That is not how legal rulings work!
Could you send me a link to this in DMs?
November 17, 2025 at 1:21 AM
Could you send me a link to this in DMs?
lol great minds think alike
November 17, 2025 at 1:20 AM
lol great minds think alike
Say what you will about the mossad but most of the people working for the agency probably know at least a little bit about Israel
November 17, 2025 at 1:20 AM
Say what you will about the mossad but most of the people working for the agency probably know at least a little bit about Israel
He found out who Lieberman was in 2018 lmao. World’s worst mossad agent
November 17, 2025 at 1:19 AM
He found out who Lieberman was in 2018 lmao. World’s worst mossad agent