@wgzlk.bsky.social
Reposted
I wish it were possible to better put into words how the Americans who most publicly and arrogantly deem themselves courageous and patriotic are, in the view of History—the history of our country and the history of our species—the most abject, low, and pathetic, whose actions shame all of us forever
June 22, 2025 at 12:00 AM
I wish it were possible to better put into words how the Americans who most publicly and arrogantly deem themselves courageous and patriotic are, in the view of History—the history of our country and the history of our species—the most abject, low, and pathetic, whose actions shame all of us forever
Reposted
"The Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion."
![Moreover, the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion. The U.S. Reports are chock-full of language explaining the importance of individuals’ right to speak out against the government—even when doing so is uncomfortable, even when doing so is provocative, even when doing so causes inconvenience. See, e.g., Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24–25 (1972) (“To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. … That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength.”); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 508 (“But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. … Any word spoken … that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk.”); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 550–51 (rejecting the argument that a conviction for breach of the peace “should be sustained because of fear expressed by some [onlookers] that ‘violence was about to erupt’ because of the demonstration” and explaining “that constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion or](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qrllvid7s54k4hnwtqxwetrf/bafkreicef73mhdhdkllvz3c36u6jystthou7yxo5m2hknejk7koc76oefq@jpeg)
June 13, 2025 at 1:08 AM
"The Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion."
Reposted
Outcomes like this with Penn seem notable because the gist of Trump's strategy is to make sure these claims of unlawful college discrimination *don't* get to court for a full airing of both sides, by applying pressure that forces college administrators to settle before that point.
June 7, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Outcomes like this with Penn seem notable because the gist of Trump's strategy is to make sure these claims of unlawful college discrimination *don't* get to court for a full airing of both sides, by applying pressure that forces college administrators to settle before that point.
Reposted
Now the ABA Journal covers the House attack on courts' contempt powers. "The budget bill provision 'appears meant to spare the federal gov't any legal consequences for even deliberate, continuing and belligerent defiance of court orders,' wrote Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute."
Proposal to limit courts' contempt power, part of spending bill, is 'terrible idea,' Chemerinsky says
A budget bill by the U.S. House of Representatives contains a “stunning” provision that would limit federal courts’ ability to hold government officials and other litigants in contempt for disobeying their orders, according to Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law.
www.abajournal.com
May 21, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Now the ABA Journal covers the House attack on courts' contempt powers. "The budget bill provision 'appears meant to spare the federal gov't any legal consequences for even deliberate, continuing and belligerent defiance of court orders,' wrote Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute."
Reposted
Glad to see Erwin Chemerinsky sounded the alarm about it yesterday at @justsecurity.org
A Terrible Idea
Dean Chemerinsky discusses the reconciliation bill’s provision that would restrict federal courts’ authority to hold government officials in contempt for violating court orders
www.justsecurity.org
May 20, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Glad to see Erwin Chemerinsky sounded the alarm about it yesterday at @justsecurity.org
Reposted
/3 The student in question was clearly terrified. But he did it anyway.
“Bran thought about it. 'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave,' his father told him.”
bsky.app/profile/jswe...
“Bran thought about it. 'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave,' his father told him.”
bsky.app/profile/jswe...
Here is a clip of the student's speech.
May 15, 2025 at 4:24 PM
/3 The student in question was clearly terrified. But he did it anyway.
“Bran thought about it. 'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave,' his father told him.”
bsky.app/profile/jswe...
“Bran thought about it. 'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave,' his father told him.”
bsky.app/profile/jswe...
Reposted
/2 The proposition that American government and institutions should unite to use official power to punish and suppress criticism of Israel is unacceptable. It should be fought by law, by defiance, and eventually if necessary by force. Free people cannot be prevented from speaking about wrong.
May 15, 2025 at 4:23 PM
/2 The proposition that American government and institutions should unite to use official power to punish and suppress criticism of Israel is unacceptable. It should be fought by law, by defiance, and eventually if necessary by force. Free people cannot be prevented from speaking about wrong.