I wish he had made more of the central, most important, number one, fundamental feature: efficiency.

Which, alas, is also true of essentially everyone asking the questions as well. Congressional hearings are 99% performance, 1% substance. (Though Bondi was truly appalling.)

Exit Strategy is better. www.exitstrategynyc.com

First time I heard that phrase was from Judge Robert Sack at a Cardozo event at which Second Circuit judges discussed judicial reliance (or not) on . . . legal scholarship. (Then Judge Sotomayor's only comment of the night, as I recall, was: "We don't read your articles. Get over it.")

Emboldened by spending too much time reading his clippings after the Abrego Garcia opinion?

Going

Started

Note that DOE went through n&c in adopting the original definition (2013); did so again in the Trump administration in replacing that rule with a more forgiving definition; and did so again in the Biden administration when reinstating the 2013 rule.

There's a conceivable (tho wrong, I think) argument that this is an interpretive rule and so doesn't require notice and comment. But that's a totally different principle. The idea that n&c is not required b/c the Pres ordered the rule withdrawn is completely unfounded, novel, and absurd.