“This legislation will…ensure federal workers receive back pay, as required by a law I got passed in 2019” really encapsulates this deal.

Trading for something you already have.

It’s also an odd thing to say when the most famous dinner in Christianity was (or closely resembled) a Passover Seder?

Also, even the most “open border” does not = no border.

Also how is a rebellion ever “ordinary”?

“You know, it is your standard, garden-variety rebellion, not one of those obscure kinds.”

More like imagining an even more absurd future to find humor in the present.

“Turns out we were wrong. Oops. Remand with instructions to dismiss as moot.”

Wait till the Court starts to decide that their expedited decision had the effect of mooting the appeal.

Not just that, though, right? Life tenure appears to be less of a savior the higher you go.

I think it also helps that, even during Trump I, many if not most district court nominees were uncontroversial, experienced, and respected attorneys.

That and, you know, district courts deal with…facts.

It is easy to throw around bc nullification is observationally equivalent to acquittal.

The more concrete distinction might be nullification isn’t as effective in a grand jury. Unlike an acquittal, Prosecutors can always back with more/better evidence.

This DOJ rarely does & thats telling.

This is terrible news.

Good news and the right decision.

The Mets fan theory of economics.

Evergreen rule.

This view also assumes static negotiating positions. Why shouldn’t Dems respond to the WH’s actions as raising the price of cooperation?

Tit for tat.

This E.B. White letter comes to mind.

Wouldn’t the court transfer instead of dismiss for that reason?

I think Northwestern sets your enrollment period. And that probably comes down to when they know their plans and their HR/admin resources.

Like the Canadian Supreme Court?

Greatly appreciate this succinct and helpful explainer of the new disparate impact EO by @sbagen.bsky.social! buttondown.com/sbagen/archi...

I also thought that the attack was that Mamdani was the socialist, not the other way around.

Feel like there should be a tolling doctrine when the prosecutors are co-conspirators.

Still confused.

Shadow precedent