peterorlowicz.bsky.social
Admin law atty, IL native, Navy veteran, sometimes appellate lawyer, board game aficionado, ethics enthusiast, railroad law-talkin' guy (he/him). Personal account, as always.
6,782 posts
3,499 followers
1,110 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
cc: @ladylawyerdiary.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
This is right up there with getting banned from the Supreme Court law library.
comment in response to
post
I confess this morning as I was waiting for my commuter train, there was an outbound UP train that was made up of about 100 empty flatbed cars and it made me think of this.
comment in response to
post
This is another good thread by someone with first-hand knowledge and experience: bsky.app/profile/comb...
comment in response to
post
45 U.S.C. § 231 et seq.
comment in response to
post
Another interesting point is the number of Guard members who are themselves local cops in their day jobs. If they're already cops, calling them up just cannibalizes the existing police forces rather than adding capacity. 4/4
comment in response to
post
That theory may not have played out quite like its architects expected, but it's still going to have repercussions for trying to use the Guard against the American public. 3/
comment in response to
post
The idea was if politicians had to call up the Guard, it meant the general public was going to have skin in the game, so to speak, and it would be politically unfeasible to have another deeply unpopular Vietnam-type war. 2/
comment in response to
post
Remember, part of the political strategy behind the all-volunteer military and shifting a lot of essential military capabilities into reserve and National Guard forces was expressly to force politicians into using Guard forces for any prolonged or major conflict. 1/
comment in response to
post
This is a very "no one without kids under 10 will know what you're talking about, but IYKYK."
comment in response to
post
And, again:
Friday afternoon news dumps really suck.
comment in response to
post
(Unless you are a railroad worker, in which case you pay slightly more and get better benefits.)
comment in response to
post
What's the exchange rate of Muskbucks to Schrutebucks?
comment in response to
post
You're going to make *me* cry.
comment in response to
post
Hey, I'll take you as a partner in Amazing Race any time.
comment in response to
post
I hear the @amtappeals.bsky.social alert tones...
comment in response to
post
Huge congrats LCDR! 😜😂
comment in response to
post
In fact, you need special permission from OPM to do that. (which used to be difficult, sigh)
comment in response to
post
So this reads to me like "more of the same, just worse" in the same way Pam Bondi is worse than Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, rather than a fundamental change in where those people come it at. Of course, most of the beachhead people didn't burrow in (term of art) to the career civil service either.
comment in response to
post
The "beachhead team" transition people in the first Trump administration were usually also coming in at that GS-14/15 level as Schedule C political appointees (confidential policy advisors, not Senate confirmed people). My sense was those folks were less experienced than most prior ones.
comment in response to
post
"Warmth"
comment in response to
post
Glowering
Glaring
Scowling