Not that proud
@notthatproud.bsky.social
Ideas control the world. No half measures.
Best of the live blog
November 5, 2025 at 12:23 PM
Best of the live blog
You‘re making a distinction between obstruct and impede that doesn’t really exist. Additionally, it looks to me that they don’t actually need to USE the U.S. military. They could say the army is committed to other things and unable to provide soldiers, and that would trigger 12406.
November 3, 2025 at 5:03 PM
You‘re making a distinction between obstruct and impede that doesn’t really exist. Additionally, it looks to me that they don’t actually need to USE the U.S. military. They could say the army is committed to other things and unable to provide soldiers, and that would trigger 12406.
Nothing can kill New York City. It survived the 70s, the 90s, it survived 9/11 and the financial crisis, Sandy and the Pandemic, Bloomberg and de Blasio. New York is all of us—bigger than any individual. We live and keep it alive. It’s 8 million people constantly recreating the city. It’s immortal.
October 30, 2025 at 3:43 PM
Nothing can kill New York City. It survived the 70s, the 90s, it survived 9/11 and the financial crisis, Sandy and the Pandemic, Bloomberg and de Blasio. New York is all of us—bigger than any individual. We live and keep it alive. It’s 8 million people constantly recreating the city. It’s immortal.
lol, sometimes you think you’re being intemperate on the internet, and then are immediately proven correct. I‘m sure Baude’s best advice on how to avoid a constitutional crisis is simply, “Give Trump everything he wants! That way he won’t violate any orders!” There’s no way out if people want it.
September 30, 2025 at 12:01 PM
lol, sometimes you think you’re being intemperate on the internet, and then are immediately proven correct. I‘m sure Baude’s best advice on how to avoid a constitutional crisis is simply, “Give Trump everything he wants! That way he won’t violate any orders!” There’s no way out if people want it.
I also cancelled my subscription, but my time runs out in November, so I could read it. These are the two chief arguments in favor. Both are pretty dumb.
September 21, 2025 at 4:14 PM
I also cancelled my subscription, but my time runs out in November, so I could read it. These are the two chief arguments in favor. Both are pretty dumb.
Funnily, this was in the NYT article about the new Searchlight Institute that is going to fight ”the groups.” That’s $10 million a year for Capitol Hill offices and SEVEN staff. Funded by billionaire hedge fund managers and real estate investors. what a joke.
September 17, 2025 at 3:47 PM
Funnily, this was in the NYT article about the new Searchlight Institute that is going to fight ”the groups.” That’s $10 million a year for Capitol Hill offices and SEVEN staff. Funded by billionaire hedge fund managers and real estate investors. what a joke.
These are right wing ideas, and they’re not particularly fringe on that side of the political spectrum. The President believes half of them, at least.
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/o...
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/o...
September 14, 2025 at 11:42 AM
These are right wing ideas, and they’re not particularly fringe on that side of the political spectrum. The President believes half of them, at least.
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/o...
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/o...
Notable, published in the Times yesterday.
September 12, 2025 at 4:36 PM
Notable, published in the Times yesterday.
I mean, the copium is so strong here. "I can't understand how all these cases consistently came out wrong. Must be they didn't read English decisions from 200 years before." Uh-huh, sure, that's what it is.
September 8, 2025 at 3:54 AM
I mean, the copium is so strong here. "I can't understand how all these cases consistently came out wrong. Must be they didn't read English decisions from 200 years before." Uh-huh, sure, that's what it is.
The hilarious part is that the study very nearly proves that the outcome of Slaughter-House was correct on the facts and the law.
September 8, 2025 at 3:54 AM
The hilarious part is that the study very nearly proves that the outcome of Slaughter-House was correct on the facts and the law.
They specifically focused on provisions that were equivalent to the due process clause insofar as it mentioned the protection of life, liberty, and property. The goal of the study was to determine if those provisions had substantive content. And shockingly, they did.
September 8, 2025 at 3:54 AM
They specifically focused on provisions that were equivalent to the due process clause insofar as it mentioned the protection of life, liberty, and property. The goal of the study was to determine if those provisions had substantive content. And shockingly, they did.
The Court touches on this again in its discussion of equal protection. This time, the language is perhaps too limiting, but what it's saying is that the 13th and 14th Amendments were designed to end slavery and prevent discrimination against former slaves and black Americans.
September 8, 2025 at 3:54 AM
The Court touches on this again in its discussion of equal protection. This time, the language is perhaps too limiting, but what it's saying is that the 13th and 14th Amendments were designed to end slavery and prevent discrimination against former slaves and black Americans.
I've included part of the discussion here. And I will be honest and say, I could well be wrong about this. The Court's language is fairly broad and it's saying that it doesn't think the 14th Am. was intended to give Congress the power to regulate state law touching on privileges and immunities.
September 8, 2025 at 3:54 AM
I've included part of the discussion here. And I will be honest and say, I could well be wrong about this. The Court's language is fairly broad and it's saying that it doesn't think the 14th Am. was intended to give Congress the power to regulate state law touching on privileges and immunities.
Then the Court just said that it was going to stop because this was all irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute here, which did not depend on federal privileges and immunities.
September 6, 2025 at 5:36 PM
Then the Court just said that it was going to stop because this was all irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute here, which did not depend on federal privileges and immunities.
So, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? The right to travel within the country. The right to use sea ports. Fair enough. What else? Protection while overseas. Ok, What else?
September 6, 2025 at 5:36 PM
So, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? The right to travel within the country. The right to use sea ports. Fair enough. What else? Protection while overseas. Ok, What else?
But what rights were encompassed in the rights of citizens of the United States? The Court says it's not proper, on this case, to fully define those privileges and immunities, because they are not implicated by the plaintiff's argument. Then it relents and gives us a taste.
September 6, 2025 at 5:36 PM
But what rights were encompassed in the rights of citizens of the United States? The Court says it's not proper, on this case, to fully define those privileges and immunities, because they are not implicated by the plaintiff's argument. Then it relents and gives us a taste.
Now, yes, the Court did say that the P&I Clause only protects people against state violations of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. It limited P&I to those things that come from federal citizenship. I think that's the correct textual reading of P&I in the 14th Am.
September 6, 2025 at 5:36 PM
Now, yes, the Court did say that the P&I Clause only protects people against state violations of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. It limited P&I to those things that come from federal citizenship. I think that's the correct textual reading of P&I in the 14th Am.
To summarize where we are, the Court is saying that states have had this traditional police power to regulate slaughterhouses. There's no real question that the state could have regulated slaughterhouses through state action. The only question is whether it violates the 14th Amendment . . .
September 6, 2025 at 5:36 PM
To summarize where we are, the Court is saying that states have had this traditional police power to regulate slaughterhouses. There's no real question that the state could have regulated slaughterhouses through state action. The only question is whether it violates the 14th Amendment . . .
So the answer is yes, states can grant monopolies through their legislatures, unless, of course, the federal or state constitution prohibits it.
The Supreme Court of LA passed on the issue and this Court can't review it.
The Supreme Court of LA passed on the issue and this Court can't review it.
September 6, 2025 at 5:36 PM
So the answer is yes, states can grant monopolies through their legislatures, unless, of course, the federal or state constitution prohibits it.
The Supreme Court of LA passed on the issue and this Court can't review it.
The Supreme Court of LA passed on the issue and this Court can't review it.
The Court discusses this for a couple paragraphs and concludes it can. The Court notes that all the cases the plaintiffs relied on where instances of the crown, in England, granting monopolies, but that Parliament and the legislatures in the states had long had this power.
September 6, 2025 at 5:36 PM
The Court discusses this for a couple paragraphs and concludes it can. The Court notes that all the cases the plaintiffs relied on where instances of the crown, in England, granting monopolies, but that Parliament and the legislatures in the states had long had this power.
Presaging modern jurisprudence, the Court says that the law is "aptly framed" to achieve the goal of protecting the health and safety of the public. That is, it is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. Everything about the statute is sufficiently just to the plaintiffs.
September 6, 2025 at 5:36 PM
Presaging modern jurisprudence, the Court says that the law is "aptly framed" to achieve the goal of protecting the health and safety of the public. That is, it is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. Everything about the statute is sufficiently just to the plaintiffs.