Profile avatar
paulitically.bsky.social
Amateur. (Vintage @paulitically available on Twitter.)
222 posts 60 followers 67 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter

It will be unpopular to point this out, but the government has affirmative duties under the 8th Amendment to protect inmates from cruel & unusual punishment. It can’t transfer inmates to the custody of foreign countries without maintaining some supervision over the conditions of their incarceration.

It’s not clear to me how the president’s loosely sketched Article II foreign affairs powers have precedence over the Constitution’s explicit guarantees of due process.

This is the foreseeable result of reckless federal layoffs. Don’t expect states to pick up the burden; assuming they have the money, that would just result in needless duplication and uneven enforcement.

Published an op-ed for @cnn.com: “Nobel laureate: I owe America my success. Today, its scientific future is in danger.” A personal reflection on what’s at stake as science funding gets slashed. I’d be grateful if you could amplify both in and beyond the science world. www.cnn.com/2025/04/09/h...

Good on these lawyers for abiding their oath. As lawyers, you don’t get a pass on following your ethical duties because higher-ups demanded it. As the Model Rules of Professional Conduct say:

NEW @vanityfair.com: When Americans died, were blinded, had eyeballs removed from tainted eye drops, @fda.gov relied on Dr Timothy Pohlhaus, among its few top sterile drug manufacturing experts. He, thousands more, were fired from US health agencies yesterday. www.vanityfair.com/news/story/t...

I still have to confirm this but it looks optically right and yall…this is insane.

A lot of federal government work (and not the most expensive stuff) involves thinking and planning for foreseeable problems. When that work is ended, we will become vulnerable and voters will ask, why weren’t we prepared. This, right here and right now, is why.

A very old Soviet joke, from an especially dark time: Foxes are fleeing the USSR in droves. Q: Why are you running away? Fox: The Soviets passed a new law that they’re going to arrest all camels. Q: But you’re foxes! Fox: Yeah, why don’t *you* try proving to the NKVD that you’re not a camel.

What?!?! Nobody read my “5 Things”? I worked hard on those.

Did the Administration chat group that National Security Adviser Waltz set up intend to include a different JG - US Trade Representative Jameison Greer, perhaps? Not sure why he would be included, though I seem to remember there being something about trade mentioned.

Combing through my text messages now to see if I’ve received any war plans.

I’m sorry but I’m still thinking about the Secretary of Defense texting “We are currently clean on OPSEC” to a group chat that, unbeknownst to him, included the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic magazine.

Submitted my “5 Things I Did Last Week” to [email protected] for the 5th week in a row. My recurring “I am Spartacus” moment.

Isn’t there a Congressional power, hiding silently in the Article II appointments clause, to designate a term of office and to require for-cause dismissal?

I think Paul, Weiss was aiming for some ambiguity with its pro bono pledge, listing only certain issues “and other mutually agreed projects” for which the pledge covers. It signals, however, its vulnerability to (in effect) paying protection money.

👇🏻‼️”The grant terminations are also an astonishing waste of money. Projects are being cut off mid-stream, with millions of dollars already invested, which now won’t be completed… The cuts are not saving money—they are doing away with investments that more than pay for themselves.”

Why is a constitutional crisis commonly defined only as executive defiance of a court order? Why doesn’t it include executive defiance of legislative power? Is it only because the legislature has submitted to the defiance? What is it, then, if the judiciary submits?

The maddening fact about Trump’s Perkins Coie EO is that it doesn’t have to be judicially upheld to be effective in wrecking the firm’s business.

Does the Alien Enemies Act, 50 USC ch.3, apply, in the absence of a declared war, to invasions? Yes, to invasions *by a foreign nation or government.*