billmurphyjr.bsky.social
I write! Quite a bit, actually! Contributing Editor at Inc.com, plus find my daily newsletter at Understandably.com.
209 posts
366 followers
186 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Re-posting this every day now, as I slowly pull my hair out
comment in response to
post
Wild comeback!
comment in response to
post
The first World Cup game with the US v. TBD is in LA one year from Friday (June 12, 2026).
comment in response to
post
The first World Cup game with the US v. TBD is in LA one year from Friday (June 12, 2026).
comment in response to
post
Carry the American flag! Don't cede those symbols and imagery to the other side!
comment in response to
post
How can the US say, "we're paying El Salvador $6 million a year to detain these people," but then argue they are not in the custody of the United States?
comment in response to
post
Well put
comment in response to
post
This choice aged ... poorly.
comment in response to
post
In current dollars, the Statue of Liberty would be worth just 1/4 of what this jet costs.
Also, the French only paid for part of it (they paid for the statue, we paid for the pedestal).
It was a gift, but they wanted to cement the US/France relationship as a counterweight against Britain.
comment in response to
post
Yes! Gen X shibboleth:
If I sing 3 words ... "We the People ..."
Do you automatically sing back ... "... in order to form a more perfect union ..."
comment in response to
post
Need to make this an easy to remember jingle like Conjunction Junction (very Gen X reference I know but it worked).
comment in response to
post
Bold statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!
comment in response to
post
I respect your opinion on a lot of stuff. But if you call up the ARNG you’d better have a very clear mission. What would it be here?
comment in response to
post
Feels like whenever I someone talk about “females” instead of “women” it’s a red flag.
comment in response to
post
NATO is a treaty which is supreme law under the us constitution
comment in response to
post
Procedurally it would be on the person who lost the pardon to challenge the revocation, probably via habeas corpus (assuming they are arrested to go back and serve the rest of their sentence!).
Besides, my point is more about not promising ahead of time to unilaterally disarm.
comment in response to
post
Garland is talking about legislative action to diminish the effect of a pardon, not a presidential decision to rescind one (which may never have been tried, I grant you!)
comment in response to
post
Not that I want to give anyone ideas, but prove to me that a president can't rescind the pardons of a previous president.
comment in response to
post
Note the last Q&A however, he did get her to admit that all the 2028 talk is just “Trump trolling.”
comment in response to
post
I'm new to this, but I've learned so far that many hearings are virtual. Also, since it's federal work you don't have to have the bar of the state you're in, just an active membership of any state.
I volunteered via Catholic Charities in NYC; honestly they were the first to get back to me!
comment in response to
post
After 20 years of not practicing law I reactivated my bar membership specifically to take pro bono immigration and asylum cases.
I've only just started, but if any other lawyers want to learn how to do this, DM me.
comment in response to
post
I keep seeing people say the marijuana is for M, smiley face is for S etc.
But why would MS-13 have English language code?
comment in response to
post
Of course I'd defend this piece of garbage's due process rights as well. (I suspect you'd agree.)
Makes the point that it's not as if any alleged gang member or criminal returned from El Salvador would be immediately set free.
They'd be locked in a US jail while going through the process.
comment in response to
post
The annual budget for the entire Bureau of Prisons is $8.4 billion.
www.prisonology.com/blog/bureau-...
comment in response to
post
Fine, be that way.
“First they came for one hairdresser…”
Does that help?
comment in response to
post
Lincoln had only 1 term in the House (1847-49) before being elected president.
He had a 19th century version of AOC’s following in the 1850s — much more his positions and passion and ability to make his message “go viral 1800s style” than anything in the system.
She should run in 2028.
comment in response to
post
If he gets out I suspect he will be held in a US facility and incommunicado.
They will say his description of what happened to him is a state secret.
comment in response to
post
Such a tiny example but this wk looking at 100%+ tariffs I raced out & got a new iPhone.
I was due but bc of other things it meant rearranging my schedule that day & skipping another work opportunity due to inconvenient timing.
Multiply that by billions of tiny decisions driven by uncertainty.
comment in response to
post
The UK and Poland had a defense agreement and Germany invaded Poland.
Later, the US declared war on Japan alone after Pearl Harbor. Germany declared war on the US so the US declared war back.
comment in response to
post
How do they supposedly know who these tossed ballots actually voted for? It could have been thousands of votes for the republican. No?
comment in response to
post
Lesson: We should have crowdfunded for @ryanhatesthis.bsky.social to live somewhere else!
comment in response to
post
Ha I worked a factory job as a college kid and didn't last 1 shift.
The other people on the line were shooting daggers bc my slow work cost them $ — they had incentive pay based on how many pieces we all produced per hour.
Just because work is not complex doesn't mean it's easy.
comment in response to
post
Nacht und Nebel
comment in response to
post
The logical extension of this would be to disappear *more* people -- sorry, they're gone, the courts already said they have no power to do anything about it.
comment in response to
post
I'm sorry this is just a hilarious thing to have as the top trending headline. I mean so sad that it's funny.
comment in response to
post
But yes this should be a giant debate playing out right now and it's frustrating that it isn't being battled out on op-ed pages -- lawful order or not, given the NATO treaty?
There will be no time for this debate if Trump orders the 82nd Airborne to land in Greenland or the like.
comment in response to
post
I don't understanding firing the top JAGs -- b/c the deputy TJAGs who are filling the jobs as "actings" have very similar backgrounds to the old ones.
For example the new & old Army TJAGs:
* Early 1990s West Point
* 4 yrs in the army (MP & EN)
* Army paid for law school
* 25+ years as a JAG
comment in response to
post
Wisconsin law already requires ID to vote. This adds it to the state Constitution and would make it harder to get rid of at any time. But doesn't seem to change anything practically.
comment in response to
post
He doesn’t have to do any of this, sadly.
Impossible to imagine Supreme Court ruling Trump is not allowed on the ballot – esp if he’s polling well.
They will rule that enforcement of the 22nd A is a political question & Congress / the states can enforce if they care enough. But courts won’t.
comment in response to
post
Nobody wants to hear this but the 3rd option is to run & say fine, sue me.
At Supreme Court, w Trump polling 45%+, expect a 5-4 or 6-3 opinion that the 22nd A is not self-enforcing & it’s up to Congress & states to enforce it if they care enough.
Basically political question doctrine.
comment in response to
post
But it's easy for me to say that from my couch, 20 years removed from having to deal with any of this.
There won't be time for a big debate if the order comes, especially if the hand-picked TJAG says: Nope, lawful, go ahead. (✊🇺🇸🔥)
Maybe I'm wrong — but again the time for the debate is now.