Matt Gruhn
@mattgruhn.bsky.social
Technology and politics. Cleveland native, transplanted to Chicago. Conflicted Cubs/Guardians fan.
Very hypothetically, if SCOTUS were to side with the administration, what do you think the consequences would be for their credibility?
After the presidential immunity decision, I take nothing for granted.
After the presidential immunity decision, I take nothing for granted.
December 5, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Very hypothetically, if SCOTUS were to side with the administration, what do you think the consequences would be for their credibility?
After the presidential immunity decision, I take nothing for granted.
After the presidential immunity decision, I take nothing for granted.
Interesting that it just says she was provided with “legal advice” and not that any of them actually said it was legal to ignore the order.
November 26, 2025 at 3:24 AM
Interesting that it just says she was provided with “legal advice” and not that any of them actually said it was legal to ignore the order.
Is there any dispute as to whether the grand jury really did indict on counts 2 & 3? Is the concern that we’re just taking the prosecutors’ and foreperson’s word on that? Or do the transcripts confirm that that was the grand jury’s intent?
November 19, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Is there any dispute as to whether the grand jury really did indict on counts 2 & 3? Is the concern that we’re just taking the prosecutors’ and foreperson’s word on that? Or do the transcripts confirm that that was the grand jury’s intent?
I honestly think the main driver for support for the filibuster is some weird nostalgia for a Mr Smith Goes to Washington Senate that never actually existed.
November 8, 2025 at 10:24 PM
I honestly think the main driver for support for the filibuster is some weird nostalgia for a Mr Smith Goes to Washington Senate that never actually existed.
Arguably also to protect the interests of coal mining states, and by Joe Lieberman to water down the ACA.
November 8, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Arguably also to protect the interests of coal mining states, and by Joe Lieberman to water down the ACA.
The current moment feels more Perónist - ideological inconsistent but populist and isolationist, with a cult of personality. Fascism-lite.
October 1, 2025 at 2:53 AM
The current moment feels more Perónist - ideological inconsistent but populist and isolationist, with a cult of personality. Fascism-lite.
Mussolini maybe, but Hitler was not a disciplined person. He was a personal mess who struggled to make decisions and regularly devolved into rants and monologues. And the Nazis were full of factional infighting.
He projected order and discipline more than lived up to it.
He projected order and discipline more than lived up to it.
October 1, 2025 at 12:00 AM
Mussolini maybe, but Hitler was not a disciplined person. He was a personal mess who struggled to make decisions and regularly devolved into rants and monologues. And the Nazis were full of factional infighting.
He projected order and discipline more than lived up to it.
He projected order and discipline more than lived up to it.
Would you argue that Perón, Franco, and Hitler were equally extreme? They seem to exist on a pretty clear continuum of fascism.
September 27, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Would you argue that Perón, Franco, and Hitler were equally extreme? They seem to exist on a pretty clear continuum of fascism.
This may incite an angry mob, but I’d put Les Mis in that square.
August 26, 2025 at 3:45 AM
This may incite an angry mob, but I’d put Les Mis in that square.
We’ll cover them in mustard, relish, tomatoes, onion, sport peppers, celery salt and a pickle, BUT NO KETCHUP.
And that’s before we break out the Malört and giardiniera.
And that’s before we break out the Malört and giardiniera.
August 12, 2025 at 12:32 AM
We’ll cover them in mustard, relish, tomatoes, onion, sport peppers, celery salt and a pickle, BUT NO KETCHUP.
And that’s before we break out the Malört and giardiniera.
And that’s before we break out the Malört and giardiniera.
Stevens hung around too long. He acknowledged as much, after he struggled to read his dissent in Citizens United.
June 27, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Stevens hung around too long. He acknowledged as much, after he struggled to read his dissent in Citizens United.
If the gov comes back with, “We asked but El Salvador said No,” do things end there, or can the district court demand the gov go further?
April 10, 2025 at 10:56 PM
If the gov comes back with, “We asked but El Salvador said No,” do things end there, or can the district court demand the gov go further?
Reposted by Matt Gruhn
We will not blindly follow illegal orders because Donald Trump wrote them down on a piece of paper.
Illinois follows the laws of the land – not the decrees of an aspiring king hell bent on disenfranchising millions of voters who deserve to have their voice heard.
Illinois follows the laws of the land – not the decrees of an aspiring king hell bent on disenfranchising millions of voters who deserve to have their voice heard.
March 25, 2025 at 11:36 PM
We will not blindly follow illegal orders because Donald Trump wrote them down on a piece of paper.
Illinois follows the laws of the land – not the decrees of an aspiring king hell bent on disenfranchising millions of voters who deserve to have their voice heard.
Illinois follows the laws of the land – not the decrees of an aspiring king hell bent on disenfranchising millions of voters who deserve to have their voice heard.
Per Curiam does not mean unanimous in SCOTUS parlance. We only know that Sotomayor and Gorsuch (who wrote separately) supported it, and at least 3 other justices did too.
January 17, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Per Curiam does not mean unanimous in SCOTUS parlance. We only know that Sotomayor and Gorsuch (who wrote separately) supported it, and at least 3 other justices did too.
Right, but if they’d granted the injunction, it would have pushed the effective date/arguments into the new admin, right?
December 18, 2024 at 4:31 PM
Right, but if they’d granted the injunction, it would have pushed the effective date/arguments into the new admin, right?
Conveniently, it also means Trump’s DOJ (which I assume wouldn’t defend the law, based on his statements) won’t get to participate.
December 18, 2024 at 4:25 PM
Conveniently, it also means Trump’s DOJ (which I assume wouldn’t defend the law, based on his statements) won’t get to participate.
Interesting. Super expedited arguments instead of an injunction means Trump’s DOJ won’t get to participate. I wonder if that was a factor here.
December 18, 2024 at 4:21 PM
Interesting. Super expedited arguments instead of an injunction means Trump’s DOJ won’t get to participate. I wonder if that was a factor here.
But the right move strategically for Smith. Even if he disagreed with - and didn’t feel bound by - the OLC guidance, pursuing at this point would probably just lead to SCOTUS enshrining the OLC rule as precedent.
November 25, 2024 at 6:48 PM
But the right move strategically for Smith. Even if he disagreed with - and didn’t feel bound by - the OLC guidance, pursuing at this point would probably just lead to SCOTUS enshrining the OLC rule as precedent.