He'd better be actually guilty.

W/strict liability, I assume?

Especially @jdmortenson.bsky.social and @jgienapp.bsky.social
Larry Kramer and Jud Campbell as well.

Hear! Hear!

Some non-originalists are actually really good at it.

Congrats! It's really well written, too.

That's three more things than many other scholars can claim!

For real... quite a combo.

Few conflicts in human history have such a clear aggressor, and a clear victim of aggression.

It is morally correct to funnel as much aid - including lethal weapons - to the victims of the aggression as possible.

The whole appeal of UET is its ruthless simplicity. It isn’t about “enough” control (which should obviously be a political decision) it’s about ANY lack of control. It’s a really appealing argument!! This admits it was always just about “enough”

This is a beautiful description.

The American needs to tell the Commonwealth guy constitutions aren't entirely written?

Where does it say judicial review exists at all? It's understood.

The Roberts court has set aside 29 Acts of Congress...the Marshall court 1. I'm inclined to believe ppl in the early republic knew better.

…be “renewed” every year, as if vehicles expire like out of date milk after a certain time period. There is absolutely no purpose served by this other than raising revenue and giving cops an excuse to do a traffic stop so they can look in side your car, etc., yet Americans just accept this as OK.

Clear error review is law - it always was and we've never changed it. It doesn't matter that today's lawyers ignore what was once orthodox; they have no authority to change the law of judicial review.

I recommend Webb's "The Lost History of Judicial Restraint" papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Treating their doctrine as final is the problem. Like all courts, they decide cases between parties and settle the fates of their claims. Their precedents, however, are no more than working answers for lower courts and officials.

Claims to the conrtary should simply be ignored.

POTUS: Congress, please create this new agency for me.
CONGRESS: But the bill will prohibit you from firing anyone working there except for proven malfeasance or the like.
P: Sounds fair, but the Court says we, the political branches, aren't allowed to make that political agreement.
C: Then, no.

...yes

Chief Justice Marshall, in McCullough v Maryland (1819).