Harsh Sancheti
@hvsancheti.bsky.social
Fascinating.
TIL that Betjeman grew up in North London and C.S. Lewis was his tutor., but they hated each other.
TIL that Betjeman grew up in North London and C.S. Lewis was his tutor., but they hated each other.
November 15, 2025 at 11:08 AM
Fascinating.
TIL that Betjeman grew up in North London and C.S. Lewis was his tutor., but they hated each other.
TIL that Betjeman grew up in North London and C.S. Lewis was his tutor., but they hated each other.
They didn’t put the truly sensitive stuff in email.
It’s just they got so desensitized and depraved that the stuff they considered small-bore and put in email horrifies us.
It’s just they got so desensitized and depraved that the stuff they considered small-bore and put in email horrifies us.
November 14, 2025 at 9:11 PM
They didn’t put the truly sensitive stuff in email.
It’s just they got so desensitized and depraved that the stuff they considered small-bore and put in email horrifies us.
It’s just they got so desensitized and depraved that the stuff they considered small-bore and put in email horrifies us.
Don’t be struck by political lightning. Stay up to date with bolts.
November 7, 2025 at 12:39 AM
Don’t be struck by political lightning. Stay up to date with bolts.
No, not “defeat”, rub da feet!
September 10, 2025 at 1:38 AM
No, not “defeat”, rub da feet!
South Indian coffee
July 18, 2025 at 8:30 PM
South Indian coffee
I’ve read some criticism of your reporting. I’d love to read your response.
July 6, 2025 at 4:40 PM
I’ve read some criticism of your reporting. I’d love to read your response.
July 5, 2025 at 11:21 PM
June 29, 2025 at 11:45 PM
June 29, 2025 at 11:43 PM
Interesting thread.
1. The notion that the Roberts Court (led by Roberts) was “good” on free speech was endorsed by Roberts himself in a speech.
2. Rumsfeld v FAIR is at least partial rebuttal of the fact that free speech was a consistent or animating principle.
1. The notion that the Roberts Court (led by Roberts) was “good” on free speech was endorsed by Roberts himself in a speech.
2. Rumsfeld v FAIR is at least partial rebuttal of the fact that free speech was a consistent or animating principle.
June 29, 2025 at 8:48 PM
Interesting thread.
1. The notion that the Roberts Court (led by Roberts) was “good” on free speech was endorsed by Roberts himself in a speech.
2. Rumsfeld v FAIR is at least partial rebuttal of the fact that free speech was a consistent or animating principle.
1. The notion that the Roberts Court (led by Roberts) was “good” on free speech was endorsed by Roberts himself in a speech.
2. Rumsfeld v FAIR is at least partial rebuttal of the fact that free speech was a consistent or animating principle.
Duh, he’s a US law prof w/a con law book to sell.
Writing in this oversaturated field requires Herculean levels of self-confidence or delusion.
To be fair, he says his is a revisionist/contrarian account and is challenging CW. I too would welcome his brief explainer, but doubt we will get it.
Writing in this oversaturated field requires Herculean levels of self-confidence or delusion.
To be fair, he says his is a revisionist/contrarian account and is challenging CW. I too would welcome his brief explainer, but doubt we will get it.
June 28, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Duh, he’s a US law prof w/a con law book to sell.
Writing in this oversaturated field requires Herculean levels of self-confidence or delusion.
To be fair, he says his is a revisionist/contrarian account and is challenging CW. I too would welcome his brief explainer, but doubt we will get it.
Writing in this oversaturated field requires Herculean levels of self-confidence or delusion.
To be fair, he says his is a revisionist/contrarian account and is challenging CW. I too would welcome his brief explainer, but doubt we will get it.
Have you read the book?
I haven’t, but I assume he does address the 10th amendment. Why not read and see if you find his reasoning persuasive and critique it if not.
I haven’t, but I assume he does address the 10th amendment. Why not read and see if you find his reasoning persuasive and critique it if not.
June 28, 2025 at 10:14 PM
Have you read the book?
I haven’t, but I assume he does address the 10th amendment. Why not read and see if you find his reasoning persuasive and critique it if not.
I haven’t, but I assume he does address the 10th amendment. Why not read and see if you find his reasoning persuasive and critique it if not.
Good answer, but without quarreling over the merits, I think you’ll have to concede that Thomas had a legitimate interpretation of Bruen in Rahimi.
If that is so, Bruen is bad b/c ambiguous and inchoate even if one stipulates that Bruen and Rahimi are both correct.
If that is so, Bruen is bad b/c ambiguous and inchoate even if one stipulates that Bruen and Rahimi are both correct.
June 24, 2025 at 11:44 PM
Good answer, but without quarreling over the merits, I think you’ll have to concede that Thomas had a legitimate interpretation of Bruen in Rahimi.
If that is so, Bruen is bad b/c ambiguous and inchoate even if one stipulates that Bruen and Rahimi are both correct.
If that is so, Bruen is bad b/c ambiguous and inchoate even if one stipulates that Bruen and Rahimi are both correct.
If you use quote marks, try to quote verbatim please?
either the author of Bruen is right in his understanding of the case or the Rahimi majority is.
And this is the only objective criteria you could find here. Revising a landmark case within 2 years.
Happened with Warren Ct too, plenty.
either the author of Bruen is right in his understanding of the case or the Rahimi majority is.
And this is the only objective criteria you could find here. Revising a landmark case within 2 years.
Happened with Warren Ct too, plenty.
June 24, 2025 at 10:47 PM
If you use quote marks, try to quote verbatim please?
either the author of Bruen is right in his understanding of the case or the Rahimi majority is.
And this is the only objective criteria you could find here. Revising a landmark case within 2 years.
Happened with Warren Ct too, plenty.
either the author of Bruen is right in his understanding of the case or the Rahimi majority is.
And this is the only objective criteria you could find here. Revising a landmark case within 2 years.
Happened with Warren Ct too, plenty.
Originalism (as opposed to textualism) only speaks to some SC cases.
Of those cases, Bruen has to be one of the worst decisions b/c almost immediately partly repudiated by all but one of the Bruen majority.
The indefensible Fed only carve-out also a contender.
Trump awful.
Of those cases, Bruen has to be one of the worst decisions b/c almost immediately partly repudiated by all but one of the Bruen majority.
The indefensible Fed only carve-out also a contender.
Trump awful.
June 24, 2025 at 10:39 PM
Originalism (as opposed to textualism) only speaks to some SC cases.
Of those cases, Bruen has to be one of the worst decisions b/c almost immediately partly repudiated by all but one of the Bruen majority.
The indefensible Fed only carve-out also a contender.
Trump awful.
Of those cases, Bruen has to be one of the worst decisions b/c almost immediately partly repudiated by all but one of the Bruen majority.
The indefensible Fed only carve-out also a contender.
Trump awful.
Cersei & Jaime discover they are unrelated.
June 9, 2025 at 11:04 AM
Cersei & Jaime discover they are unrelated.
They will take a different position in the SC and pay no price.
May 22, 2025 at 8:06 PM
They will take a different position in the SC and pay no price.
The center cannot hold.
May 22, 2025 at 2:09 PM
The center cannot hold.
Name the puppies Benedict, Francis, Leo.
May 13, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Name the puppies Benedict, Francis, Leo.
Calling her Everest was a mistake.
May 12, 2025 at 1:34 AM
Calling her Everest was a mistake.
Outstanding 1st para. Thank you for sharing.
May 10, 2025 at 1:02 AM
Outstanding 1st para. Thank you for sharing.
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again
Stuck in my head everyday.
Who will not be slaves again
Stuck in my head everyday.
May 10, 2025 at 12:52 AM
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again
Stuck in my head everyday.
Who will not be slaves again
Stuck in my head everyday.
He thinks it plays weak.
May 9, 2025 at 11:10 AM
He thinks it plays weak.
Yes, pretty much. New normal now.
May 8, 2025 at 11:45 PM
Yes, pretty much. New normal now.