FirstCritique
@firstcritique.bsky.social
The line soldiers executing these orders really need lawyers. My work precludes me from doing that. Some kid fresh out of boot camp could easily be in a ton of legal peril because they assumed the people in Washington weren't insane.
December 4, 2025 at 2:43 AM
The line soldiers executing these orders really need lawyers. My work precludes me from doing that. Some kid fresh out of boot camp could easily be in a ton of legal peril because they assumed the people in Washington weren't insane.
Let me be clear: I 100% support the independent decisions of my underling who is totally responsible for these crimes. He’s very experienced and wouldn’t crime, which is why I gave my underling total independence on this issue. I stand behind my soldiers and their independent choices.
December 2, 2025 at 2:12 AM
Let me be clear: I 100% support the independent decisions of my underling who is totally responsible for these crimes. He’s very experienced and wouldn’t crime, which is why I gave my underling total independence on this issue. I stand behind my soldiers and their independent choices.
I should add that making this up seems a lot less invented to me than creating criminal immunity out of no text because you somehow decided it's necessary for Article II to work. If you can do that, can't you invent some equitable powers in order to save the Fourth Amendment?
November 22, 2025 at 4:29 AM
I should add that making this up seems a lot less invented to me than creating criminal immunity out of no text because you somehow decided it's necessary for Article II to work. If you can do that, can't you invent some equitable powers in order to save the Fourth Amendment?
But if Congress won't and the executive is pushing the issue, can the courts really allow the Fourth Amendment to be a dead letter?
November 22, 2025 at 4:02 AM
But if Congress won't and the executive is pushing the issue, can the courts really allow the Fourth Amendment to be a dead letter?
But let's be clear, that's pretty much made up. I think it's bad for the court to have to get to a place where that's necessary. Congress passing a law or the executive not forcing that kind of ruling would be much better.
November 22, 2025 at 4:02 AM
But let's be clear, that's pretty much made up. I think it's bad for the court to have to get to a place where that's necessary. Congress passing a law or the executive not forcing that kind of ruling would be much better.
I just channel it from Pure Reason :).
I do think it's fair to say: the Fourth Amendment can't be meaningless and says there is a ban on "unreasonable" search and seizure. This order is necessary to secure the rights of the citizens of Chicago against "unreasonable" police action.
I do think it's fair to say: the Fourth Amendment can't be meaningless and says there is a ban on "unreasonable" search and seizure. This order is necessary to secure the rights of the citizens of Chicago against "unreasonable" police action.
November 22, 2025 at 4:01 AM
I just channel it from Pure Reason :).
I do think it's fair to say: the Fourth Amendment can't be meaningless and says there is a ban on "unreasonable" search and seizure. This order is necessary to secure the rights of the citizens of Chicago against "unreasonable" police action.
I do think it's fair to say: the Fourth Amendment can't be meaningless and says there is a ban on "unreasonable" search and seizure. This order is necessary to secure the rights of the citizens of Chicago against "unreasonable" police action.
To be clearer I think a judge may be able to ban a much wider array of conduct where the record shows the kind of bad faith and reckless conduct in Chicago. Maybe much less or none at all if the record shows careful conduct genuinely intended to follow the law.
November 21, 2025 at 11:36 PM
To be clearer I think a judge may be able to ban a much wider array of conduct where the record shows the kind of bad faith and reckless conduct in Chicago. Maybe much less or none at all if the record shows careful conduct genuinely intended to follow the law.
I agree, I think what’s new is the urgency with which the question is presenting itself. I do not think a clear and precise boundary is possible as an answer to your question. The Fourth Amendment uses the word ”reasonable,” and maybe it depends more on the circumstances than percentage banned.
November 21, 2025 at 11:34 PM
I agree, I think what’s new is the urgency with which the question is presenting itself. I do not think a clear and precise boundary is possible as an answer to your question. The Fourth Amendment uses the word ”reasonable,” and maybe it depends more on the circumstances than percentage banned.
A congressional fix that protects courts from having to confront this kind of issue would be better. But there is even less chance of that. Really, this is a microcosm of the bigger question of our times: does it turn out that our system of government protects us from authoritarianism?
November 21, 2025 at 1:09 PM
A congressional fix that protects courts from having to confront this kind of issue would be better. But there is even less chance of that. Really, this is a microcosm of the bigger question of our times: does it turn out that our system of government protects us from authoritarianism?
I think the right logic is the same that brought us the exclusionary rule: the Fourth Amendment risks being a dead letter without that power. It's not just a hypothetical, with government agents simply not worrying about whether their conduct is lawful.
Will SCOTUS agree? I doubt it.
Will SCOTUS agree? I doubt it.
November 21, 2025 at 1:06 PM
I think the right logic is the same that brought us the exclusionary rule: the Fourth Amendment risks being a dead letter without that power. It's not just a hypothetical, with government agents simply not worrying about whether their conduct is lawful.
Will SCOTUS agree? I doubt it.
Will SCOTUS agree? I doubt it.
Are you just quoting this because she cites you? :) I imagine that's not so novel for you at this point though . . .
November 21, 2025 at 3:05 AM
Are you just quoting this because she cites you? :) I imagine that's not so novel for you at this point though . . .
It's being made by a prosecutor's office that KNOWS whether that fact is true or false. If it's false, these clowns should be sanctioned and maybe referred for discipline. Utterly recklessly insane and not at all lawyered.
November 21, 2025 at 2:42 AM
It's being made by a prosecutor's office that KNOWS whether that fact is true or false. If it's false, these clowns should be sanctioned and maybe referred for discipline. Utterly recklessly insane and not at all lawyered.
Lawyered would be "there is evidence in the record that" the grand jury saw the indictment. Which would still be dumb and VERY close to the line and inadvisable, but maybe not obviously sanctionable. The statement in that filing is an assertion of fact.
November 21, 2025 at 2:40 AM
Lawyered would be "there is evidence in the record that" the grand jury saw the indictment. Which would still be dumb and VERY close to the line and inadvisable, but maybe not obviously sanctionable. The statement in that filing is an assertion of fact.
The statement "[t]his sworn testimony alone establishes that the grand jury voted on the two count indictment" is an unambiguous assertion. If that assertion is false and you know it's false, you can't fucking make it in a court filing. I respectfully disagree that it's even "lawyered." It is not.
November 21, 2025 at 2:38 AM
The statement "[t]his sworn testimony alone establishes that the grand jury voted on the two count indictment" is an unambiguous assertion. If that assertion is false and you know it's false, you can't fucking make it in a court filing. I respectfully disagree that it's even "lawyered." It is not.
Look, either the entire grand jury saw the operative indictment or they didn't. If they did, then their conduct at the prior hearing was shamefully incompetent. If they didn't, this filing is not just frivolous, it's a sanctionable ethics violation and an incredibly dumb one.
November 21, 2025 at 2:31 AM
Look, either the entire grand jury saw the operative indictment or they didn't. If they did, then their conduct at the prior hearing was shamefully incompetent. If they didn't, this filing is not just frivolous, it's a sanctionable ethics violation and an incredibly dumb one.
I don't think the foreperson is actively trying to mislead the Court here, but the attorney present ABSOLUTELY had an obligation to correct this record.
November 20, 2025 at 3:14 AM
I don't think the foreperson is actively trying to mislead the Court here, but the attorney present ABSOLUTELY had an obligation to correct this record.
GOP may want to rethink those R +8 gerrymanders . . .
November 5, 2025 at 2:36 AM
GOP may want to rethink those R +8 gerrymanders . . .
Wait. Then in their view who the fuck is the USA for EDVA?
November 4, 2025 at 12:43 AM
Wait. Then in their view who the fuck is the USA for EDVA?
supposedly “moderate” assholes who repeat the empty rhetoric about border security without even spending a sentence on actual policy do nothing but allow people to pretend this is all about something else. It’s not and never has been.
November 1, 2025 at 4:25 PM
supposedly “moderate” assholes who repeat the empty rhetoric about border security without even spending a sentence on actual policy do nothing but allow people to pretend this is all about something else. It’s not and never has been.
The entire discourse about “open borders” and “border security” has always been a lie. If border security were an issue they cared about border patrol wouldn’t be in fucking Chicago. The right sees immigration policy as a tool to ensure racial ”purity.” That’s what this is about.
November 1, 2025 at 4:23 PM
The entire discourse about “open borders” and “border security” has always been a lie. If border security were an issue they cared about border patrol wouldn’t be in fucking Chicago. The right sees immigration policy as a tool to ensure racial ”purity.” That’s what this is about.
It is also common in some jurisdictions for children charged as adults to be kept in solitary in an adult prison. How that isn’t shocking to people is beyond me.
October 17, 2025 at 11:48 PM
It is also common in some jurisdictions for children charged as adults to be kept in solitary in an adult prison. How that isn’t shocking to people is beyond me.
That is one risk of gerrymandering; if your assumption about how big of a wave is possible winds up being wrong you can wind up wiping out. With that said so far it seems like voters really do not care much what their elected representatives do. They care more about what lies they are told.
October 14, 2025 at 12:58 AM
That is one risk of gerrymandering; if your assumption about how big of a wave is possible winds up being wrong you can wind up wiping out. With that said so far it seems like voters really do not care much what their elected representatives do. They care more about what lies they are told.
I don't think you could fully take away final jurisdiction. But I think you could, e.g., set up a 14 judge intermediate court between the courts of appeals and SCOTUS and allow SCOTUS to only have appellate jurisdiction if there is a 7-7 split?
October 11, 2025 at 7:17 PM
I don't think you could fully take away final jurisdiction. But I think you could, e.g., set up a 14 judge intermediate court between the courts of appeals and SCOTUS and allow SCOTUS to only have appellate jurisdiction if there is a 7-7 split?
Yeah, my fun plan for court reform is to give SCOTUS original jurisdiction over family law matters and traffic law violations in DC. Just make it too miserable of a job.
October 11, 2025 at 6:46 PM
Yeah, my fun plan for court reform is to give SCOTUS original jurisdiction over family law matters and traffic law violations in DC. Just make it too miserable of a job.