mikesapoz.bsky.social
Dad, lawyer for the good guys, and person for the world's silliest greyhound. In the prisoner's dilemma, I always choose cooperation.
333 posts
117 followers
117 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
A clock that is always wrong is not entirely worthless. It tells you one of the 1440 minutes in each day that it isn’t.
comment in response to
post
Can we call America's actual opposition party when it forms "The Nobodies?"
comment in response to
post
So tonight I grieve. And tomorrow it is time to start that work anew.
comment in response to
post
And I grieve for our nation. We could be more but have chosen to be less, to be petty, to be mean.
America and its Constitution still have great promise. But it will take tremendous work to undo the damage done this year (and set up over the last 30+ years).
comment in response to
post
I grieve for the people who will be ripped away from us. I grieve for the shattered families.
I grieve for the Constitution, a document whose promise was just starting to be met. I grieve for the bravery of the Court that issued Brown v. Board in 1954, its work now largely undone.
comment in response to
post
And there, I'm afraid, the Court's silence will be easily interpreted. After all, at the time the Fifth Amendment was ratified, more than 17 percent of the population was permanently denied liberty through slavery without any process at all.
And so DHS v. D.V.D. takes America back to its roots.
comment in response to
post
If it is no longer true that "no person" can be denied liberty without due process, then how are district and circuit courts supposed to know which persons now get the benefit of the most fundamental of constitutional rights, and which persons do not?
comment in response to
post
Are district court and circuit court judges expected to follow what the Constitution says, or what the Supreme Court says it says?
How are they supposed to understand what the Supreme Court says it says, if the Supreme Court won't provide written guidance?
comment in response to
post
And who is to say that argument is wrong? Obviously not the Supreme Court, who today failed Judge Wilkerson's test. If the Supreme Court will not uphold the plain words of the constitution--that no person may be denied liberty without due process--then who can?
comment in response to
post
What we can say for sure is that DHS v. D.V.D. will be treated as standing for the proposition that human beings may be seized and detained, forced onto airplanes, and flown to countries that they have absolutely no connection to.
This (it will be argued) can be done with no judicial process.
comment in response to
post
(Wilkerson's opinion is at storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...)
It's hard to say exactly what DHS v. D.V.D. stands for because the majority did not elect to explain their decision with a written opinion.
(Which is anathema to our common law system, but that's a point for another rant)
comment in response to
post
The stakes in DHS v. D.V.D. were the highest. In the words of Harvey Wilkerson in a 4th Circuit opinion regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia that raised very similar issues:
comment in response to
post
The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. I don't believe there are more important words anywhere in the Constitution.
"No person." Not "no citizen." Not "no landowning white man."
No.
Person.
comment in response to
post
I am a constitutional lawyer. I have sworn at least ten oaths to the constitution. (Naturalization, the court clerk's oath, at least seven bars including the US Supreme Court Bar, and for my current job).
And it hurts to see the Fifth Amendment undone today in DHS v. D.V.D.
comment in response to
post
I do not want AI in art
I do not want in whole or part
I do not want it when I write
Creatively it’s really shite
I do not want it making pics
Of stolen work it has remixed
I do not want it in my mail
This really is beyond the pale
I do not want this endless spam
I hate it, hate it, Sam Altman
comment in response to
post
(and yes, I know there were always problems, you don't need to explain that to me. It's definitely much, much worse now)
comment in response to
post
I would really like to subscribe to a newspaper that prints the news, with ethical good-faith editors who make sensible decisions about what stories to prioritize. I grew up with good newspapers and enjoy reading them.
But that doesn't exist anymore!
comment in response to
post
Here's a law professor's article about this: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
And at least some politicians are listening to that professor: law.ucdavis.edu/news/congres...
comment in response to
post
Why not both?
- January 1, 2000, at the Rose Bowl Parade
comment in response to
post
I was really glad to get to hear this here because the PA wasn’t reaching us at all in the middle of the crowd. So if you didn’t get the reaction you expected, it’s because we just couldn’t hear you.
comment in response to
post
No doubt! This is from March 7.