To be fair, there are probably many better ones, these are just the five that came to mind.

Thanks Andy! A bit of trivia: the piece was originally titled "Gone (b)(4) You Know It" but the editor (wisely) suggested changing it something more than a handful of people would understand.

A little while later, a close friend (who is also on my Discord) messaged me and thanked me for making the server a safe space. At that moment, I let go of any doubt I had about my decision, because I understood was at stake: my friend's ability to be in and enjoy that community.

Very excited to read this! Also, shout out to @bearpondbooks.bsky.social for being the coolest.

I know bad FOIA arguments from agencies aren't exactly novel, but this really takes it to another level...

Gotta sign off - can't wait to read the rest!

Judge Howell preemptively agreeing with plaintiffs' counsel is a bad sign for the DOJ (in case it wasn't clear where this hearing was going).

Literal permission from the court to talk smack.

123 minutes in!

I have class in 35 minutes, they need to wrap this up!

Very telling that Lawson has started framing this as "the president's concerns with diversity." That's pretty far from the legal standard of "invidious discrimination."

Big tension here with studies showing that in some fields (e.g. legal services) cultural alignment between client and attorney is highly beneficial. Presumably that would be unlawful as race, ethnicity, or national origin discrimination.

In combination w/ Lawson's response on security clearance, the DOJ seems to be saying that personal animus by the president is a legitimate factor in considering whether a firm can be trusted with gov't business. BIG IF TRUE!