I'm Dubious
@ezaherron.bsky.social
Post-apocalyptic dystopian books and movies weren’t supposed to be aspirational.
I am 100% certain he watched Gladiator and cheered for Commodus the whole time.
July 4, 2025 at 2:41 PM
I am 100% certain he watched Gladiator and cheered for Commodus the whole time.
They left in this get-out-of-jail-free (pun fully intended) card for the orange one tho 😕
April 10, 2025 at 11:40 PM
They left in this get-out-of-jail-free (pun fully intended) card for the orange one tho 😕
I don’t expect those definitions to ultimately matter due to the “deference owed to POTUS to conduct foreign affairs.” They’ll start with the definition fight, and maybe “lose” but when it gets back to SCOTUS for the final final time, it will over this passage and SCOTUS will acquiesce again.
April 10, 2025 at 11:19 PM
I don’t expect those definitions to ultimately matter due to the “deference owed to POTUS to conduct foreign affairs.” They’ll start with the definition fight, and maybe “lose” but when it gets back to SCOTUS for the final final time, it will over this passage and SCOTUS will acquiesce again.
I find this to be the concerning part. Whatever the District Court says or does, it will come back to SCOTUS over this passage
April 10, 2025 at 11:06 PM
I find this to be the concerning part. Whatever the District Court says or does, it will come back to SCOTUS over this passage
I’m assuming we’re talking about these “scary” numbers?
April 4, 2025 at 11:53 PM
I’m assuming we’re talking about these “scary” numbers?
Seems we know how it would go if it were a D
March 27, 2025 at 3:26 PM
Seems we know how it would go if it were a D
Every parent when their kid realizes you can’t actually MAKE them do anything 😂😂
March 27, 2025 at 1:15 PM
Every parent when their kid realizes you can’t actually MAKE them do anything 😂😂
And since this speech just snuck up on them, there wasn’t any time to come up with an actual effective, consistent, unified plan and they had to figure it out this morning, apparently 🙄🤦♂️
March 5, 2025 at 12:31 AM
And since this speech just snuck up on them, there wasn’t any time to come up with an actual effective, consistent, unified plan and they had to figure it out this morning, apparently 🙄🤦♂️
Pretty sure there was something about this idea of who gets to interpret laws in my Con Law class many years ago 🤔
February 18, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Pretty sure there was something about this idea of who gets to interpret laws in my Con Law class many years ago 🤔
That’s a federal statute. Who is gonna file it?
Why not NY state bribery laws?
codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law...
Why not NY state bribery laws?
codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law...
February 15, 2025 at 3:03 AM
That’s a federal statute. Who is gonna file it?
Why not NY state bribery laws?
codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law...
Why not NY state bribery laws?
codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law...
Accepting a bribe is a NY state crime codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law...
February 15, 2025 at 12:37 AM
Accepting a bribe is a NY state crime codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law...
I’m sure @newyorkstateag.bsky.social is all over this, but for everyone else that might be wondering:
February 15, 2025 at 12:04 AM
I’m sure @newyorkstateag.bsky.social is all over this, but for everyone else that might be wondering:
Anyone else old enough to remember when a US President was barred from deleting even a single line of an otherwise-duly-enacted law because it was unconstitutional “to effect the repeal of laws for his own policy reasons” in a way contrary to the procedures found in the Constitution?
February 12, 2025 at 12:17 PM
Anyone else old enough to remember when a US President was barred from deleting even a single line of an otherwise-duly-enacted law because it was unconstitutional “to effect the repeal of laws for his own policy reasons” in a way contrary to the procedures found in the Constitution?
In theory, there are consequences to the lawyers who would defend such a ludicrous position.
January 23, 2025 at 7:09 PM
In theory, there are consequences to the lawyers who would defend such a ludicrous position.
He ‘nominated’ him. He didn’t ‘appoint’ him. He does not have the authority to do that. The Senate has to confirm him. Stop with the defeatist language on these terrible nominations.
December 1, 2024 at 4:42 PM
He ‘nominated’ him. He didn’t ‘appoint’ him. He does not have the authority to do that. The Senate has to confirm him. Stop with the defeatist language on these terrible nominations.