bam5.bsky.social
I know a few things about law. Not quite ready to give up on this place.
1,112 posts
175 followers
248 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
We could do worse than someone who wrote a whole book about why the filibuster is bad
comment in response to
post
The right tried to make it a thing when Obama did it, so I'm assuming that's when it first got lodged in his brain www.npr.org/sections/its...
comment in response to
post
Checkmate libs
comment in response to
post
Also bonds are only required for preliminary injunctions/TROs per the rule and there's nothing stopping a court from setting the bond at $1, so even if they comply it's a trivial obstacle to overcome.
comment in response to
post
It doesn't work for like half a dozen reasons but that was how it was explained to me on at least one panicked reddit thread.
comment in response to
post
It's the provision purporting to prevent funds from being spent on contempt proceedings for violating injunctions unless a bond is set per Rule 65(c)—which, to be clear, I also think everyone is grossly overreading.
I think the idea is he cancels elections, a court enjoins, and he goes haha nope!
comment in response to
post
It's still a little wild to me that the companies are apparently relying entirely on a letter from DoJ. I can only imagine that they either assume the next administration won't bother, or that Congress could be convinced to give them immunity before this goes too far.
comment in response to
post
Over the years the actual criticism (Biden ran the hearing poorly, failed to call supporting witnesses, and let Republicans attack Hill) has morphed into him voting for Thomas. Continental take drift.
comment in response to
post
But I am always in favor of retconning the time between Ep. 3 and 4 to be a little longer.
comment in response to
post
I don't know how old the character is actually supposed to be, but I assume the imperial kinder-block was previously a republic kinder-block but for *reasons* they don't mention the old name. It might have been imperial by the time she left.
comment in response to
post
It's been months of this but I still don't get the "cherished" thing. Has anyone figured out why he keeps using that word?
comment in response to
post
None of them. The biggest mistake Trump's purported successors (and honestly most of the political world) make is thinking the secret is just to be a smarter Trump and dominate the system. They all fail because being kind of a dumb, un-self-aware guy is integral to the comedy.
comment in response to
post
I kind of think it's the opposite. Vance knows how to be an asshole and a troll. He's just not funny and doesn't know how to make the audience laugh along with him.
comment in response to
post
It's normal for a party to flail around for a cycle or two after their talented standard bearer leaves the scene, and I expect that to happen to the GOP like everyone else. It's also normal for parties to eventually recover, particularly after changes are made. But the specifics are hard to predict.
comment in response to
post
Booker's proposal for the Marshall seems really solid and I hope they take that seriously
comment in response to
post
It is precisely because the media is liberal-leaning that it sees its goal as telling its largely liberal reader base hard truths. One of those hard truths is that liberals are unduly dismissive of Trump voters' concerns. This is unrelated to his actual popularity.
comment in response to
post
The takes have never been hotter
comment in response to
post
You know who else was a cocaine-using failson of a former president who managed to win two terms?
comment in response to
post
Keep that energy up, you'll never be disappointed and you might be pleasantly surprised.
comment in response to
post
Why not? Even Biden made a bunch of firings of holdover Trump people on day one citing Selia Law.
comment in response to
post
The silver lining (per NPR) is you have Schumer threatening revenge rather than restoration.
comment in response to
post
Oh I'm totally not trying to read too much into the difference—it's all probably somewhere in the ballpark. I'm just a little curious about how they're weighing/excluding
comment in response to
post
I can almost squint a little bit and see how the NLRB gets put in the executive box, but now MSPB...
comment in response to
post
That the MSPB apparently exercises "considerable executive power" is low-key the weirdest aspect of this decision. The quasi-judicial board that adjudicates civil service personnel matters?
comment in response to
post
Time for Silver and G. Elliot Morris to have another fight about their respective poll aggregate methodologies
comment in response to
post
I have no idea if it would survive reconciliation rules but that might be beside the point. If the House GOP didn't even want to keep it, would the Senate GOP?
comment in response to
post
I thought that was taken out. Did it get put back in? theintercept.com/2025/05/19/n...
comment in response to
post
The way this might work is a future admin issues CA waivers again, which are challenged, and either the courts won't hear it, or they do hear it and CA can argue that waivers aren't rules for CRA purposes.
For what I can tell at first glance, there is surprisingly little legal precedent on this Q.
comment in response to
post
Again, not my area, but if judicial review is not available then the salt-the-earth provision is a dead letter in any case, as there's no forum to determine whether a newly issued rule is "substantially similar" to what was previously struck down by Congress.
comment in response to
post
I'm waiting for the admin law experts to weigh in, but I feel like there's a separate question of whether the waiver counts as a rule for the purposes of the CRA's salt-the-earth provision. Seems like a matter of statutory interpretation and CA should challenge it.
comment in response to
post
Not a real obstacle even if it passes: the moving party just has to put up security, which a judge could set as low as $1.
comment in response to
post
There are undoubtably many servers with low federal income tax burdens who are being led to believe this is bigger for them than it is.