C.S.
LightNews LightNews
cephander.bsky.social
C.S.
@cephander.bsky.social
230 followers 320 following 1.6K posts
he/they | polisci major (for my sins), recovering theatre kid, seattle mariners enthusiast, food discourse centrist, theoretically I write sometimes
Posts Replies Media Videos
cephander.bsky.social
My principled opposition to the death penalty includes *everyone*—and that means our current enemies. I think they should face consequences, yes. But capital punishment is an inherently regressive force. Master’s tools, master’s house and all that.
taliabhatt.itch.io Talia "Estro Junkies" Bhatt ♀︎♀︎ @taliabhatt.itch.io · Nov 14
"my least woke opinion is---"

That's enough. We've had enough people indulging in the "thrill of a little conservatism", as a treat. Of considering reactionary thought to be a salacious and taboo in a world descending into reactionary mania.

Give me your MOST woke opinions. We're bringing it back.
December 28, 2025 at 7:07 AM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
If his definition of American requires viewing things through a 2000 year old lens that has never been part of American legal tradition, then maybe, just maybe, he took a wrong turn somewhere.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
The biggest irony of all, though, is that Vermeule is trying to come up with a definition of American by importing a foreign legal tradition. One of the core features of American law is that it's built on English common law, NOT Roman civil law.
Unlike the heritage view, at least in its purest form, the model of adoption I have offered from the principles of Roman law does not say that the right sort of descent by blood is necessary to be fully American. But, unlike the pure form of the creedal view, this model also understands that it may be harmful for a natural family to take in too many adopted children at once — a concern analogous to Roman scrutiny of adrogations that might unduly burden an existing household (cf. D. 1.7.15, which admonishes against adrogating several children). Most of all, it understands that the adopted child of the American family who appoints himself a mere critic or even a political enemy of the traditions, the culture, and the very substance of that family and its history, has violated the filial obligations of pietas and reverentia, and is thus no true American at all. In this sense, our law and its interpretation should reflect what being an American really means.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
And again, Vermeule fails to explain why the statutes he cites incorporate Roman ideas, he just declares that they do because he wants them to.
For the immigrant to denigrate the heritage, culture and history of the very nation that opened its doors to him, to neglect or to belittle the ancestral cult of the very family has granted him the privilege of being counted by the law as their child, is in a substantive sense for the immigrant to self-denaturalize. He thereby forfeits the privilege of being treated as though he is a natural child of the American family. Such principles of legal justice can and should make up the spirit that informs the interpretation of our laws, such as the provision (18 U.S.C. 1425(a)) that establishes penalties for anyone who “knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person” (my emphasis), including the immigrant himself; or the provision (8 U.S.C. 1451) allowing de-naturalization of those who, within five years of naturalization, “become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization,” because such membership or affiliation is “prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization.” When interpreting such provisions, executive officers and judges ought not read them in a cramped and strictly positivist way, but in a way that captures the point and spirit of citizenship-as-adoption.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
There's also a certain irony in Vermeule declaring that immigrants must show respect for American traditions when those same traditions include a right to criticize this country.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
He also disdainfully mentions "positive law" in a few places, framing it as something insignificant and insubstantial. What is positive law? It's what everyone else would call "law." He literally means the statutes and Constitution of this country, which he deems "thin" and "minimum."
He must not say, even to himself, “all of that history happened before I got here; it has nothing to do with me and mine; we are free to wield our rights however we like, free to do as we like within the minimum boundaries of the positive law.” In contrast to Ilhan Omar and her kind, he must not assume that because he has the right legal status in the thin positive-law sense, he is free to spew venom at the American ancestors who built the very framework of society and legality that now protects his speech, his livelihood, and his very life.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
Is he saying the people who passed the INA in 1952 intended to incorporate Roman ideas of justice and fairness? That's obviously not true. Is he saying they shared the Romans' understanding of these ideas? Also obviously not true. So where does this idea come from? I don't know and he doesn't say.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
Right away, he runs into the obvious question: why? And you know, he never actually answers it. Vermeule gestures toward the idea of the "spirit" of the law without saying how modern immigration law (largely stemming from a 1952 statute) incorporates the law and principles of ancient Rome.
Because it is an analogy, not an identity, what I propose is not a set of legal rules to be directly mapped from Roman law into the American legal system. Rather it is a suggestion that the Roman law of adoption rested on a set of discernible principles of legal justice and political morality that represent the spirit of the laws bearing on immigration and citizenship in America — a time-honored mode of legal interpretation here, albeit not an originalist mode. Such principles should affect the interpretation of actually existing legal texts, rules, and doctrines; they should be understood as the soul of our law of citizenship. Needless to say, this does not answer or even purport to speak to all questions bearing on immigration. I do not speak here, for example, to the enforcement of the immigration laws against illegal immigrants, or to prospective questions of policy about exactly how much legal immigration, if any, there should be, and from where. All I address is the question what principles of legal justice and political duty apply, under existing law, to the immigrant who is already here legally. To that end I suggest a conceptual model for understanding the role and obligations of that immigrant — what justice classically understood requires of him.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
It's a Saturday morning and I'm bored, so here's a thread on exactly why Vermeule is not just wrong, but laughably so (thread)
paolosandro.bsky.social Paolo Sandro @paolosandro.bsky.social · 1d
I had missed this latest delirium by Adrian Vermeule on birthright citizenship

'Common law?! NAH, it's the Roman law of adoption that should govern the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution!'

thenewdigest.substack.com/p/immigratio...
What I suggest is different. Although broadly in the spirit of Aquinas’ two-or-three generations test insofar as it emphasizes the duties rather than the rights of immigrants who becomes citizens, it is derived not from theological principles but from a civil-law analogy — an analogy to the Roman law of adoption. After all, inclusion within “our posterity” may ordinarily arise not only through natural descent, but through legal adoption. In brief, I suggest that the legal immigrant should understand himself as an adopted son of a natural and concretely existing family, the American family, and this brings with it particular duties of filial piety and reverence for that particular family and for its thick heritage and traditions. Our laws as made, interpreted and applied should reflect that understanding as well. Because it is an analogy, not an identity, what I propose is not a set of legal rules to be directly mapped from Roman law into the American legal system. Rather it is a suggestion that the Roman law of adoption rested on a set of discernible principles of legal justice and political morality that represent the spirit of the laws bearing on immigration and citizenship in America — a time-honored mode of legal interpretation here, albeit not an originalist mode. Such principles should affect the interpretation of actually existing legal texts, rules, and doctrines; they should be understood as the soul of our law of citizenship. Needless to say, this does not answer or even purport to speak to all questions bearing on immigration. I do not speak here, for example, to the enforcement of the immigration laws against illegal immigrants, or to prospective questions of policy about exactly how much legal immigration, if any, there should be, and from where. All I address is the question what principles of legal justice and political duty apply, under existing law, to the immigrant who is already here legally. To that end I suggest a conceptual model for understanding the role and obligations of that immigrant — what justice classically understood requires of him.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
nickturse.bsky.social
How long until he drops a version of this?
December 27, 2025 at 3:50 PM
Reposted by C.S.
joshuajfriedman.com
Goat down! I repeat: Goat down! www.dn.se/sverige/stor...
Auto-translation of news site: Storm Johannes overturned the Gävle goat. The Gävle goat has once again met an unfortunate fate.
December 27, 2025 at 5:43 PM
Reposted by C.S.
bretdevereaux.bsky.social
This is extremely dumb for a variety of reasons but perhaps the most obvious is that the Romans didn't apply their adoption law to grants of citizenship.

I cannot communicate how basic an error he is making here. Staggeringly elementary, a thing you learn in Roman Civ 101.
paolosandro.bsky.social Paolo Sandro @paolosandro.bsky.social · 1d
I had missed this latest delirium by Adrian Vermeule on birthright citizenship

'Common law?! NAH, it's the Roman law of adoption that should govern the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution!'

thenewdigest.substack.com/p/immigratio...
What I suggest is different. Although broadly in the spirit of Aquinas’ two-or-three generations test insofar as it emphasizes the duties rather than the rights of immigrants who becomes citizens, it is derived not from theological principles but from a civil-law analogy — an analogy to the Roman law of adoption. After all, inclusion within “our posterity” may ordinarily arise not only through natural descent, but through legal adoption. In brief, I suggest that the legal immigrant should understand himself as an adopted son of a natural and concretely existing family, the American family, and this brings with it particular duties of filial piety and reverence for that particular family and for its thick heritage and traditions. Our laws as made, interpreted and applied should reflect that understanding as well. Because it is an analogy, not an identity, what I propose is not a set of legal rules to be directly mapped from Roman law into the American legal system. Rather it is a suggestion that the Roman law of adoption rested on a set of discernible principles of legal justice and political morality that represent the spirit of the laws bearing on immigration and citizenship in America — a time-honored mode of legal interpretation here, albeit not an originalist mode. Such principles should affect the interpretation of actually existing legal texts, rules, and doctrines; they should be understood as the soul of our law of citizenship. Needless to say, this does not answer or even purport to speak to all questions bearing on immigration. I do not speak here, for example, to the enforcement of the immigration laws against illegal immigrants, or to prospective questions of policy about exactly how much legal immigration, if any, there should be, and from where. All I address is the question what principles of legal justice and political duty apply, under existing law, to the immigrant who is already here legally. To that end I suggest a conceptual model for understanding the role and obligations of that immigrant — what justice classically understood requires of him.
December 27, 2025 at 12:47 AM
Reposted by C.S.
brunodias.bsky.social
"Did you see what Mark Cuban posted? Oh did you see the clapb—"

You shake yourself awake in the cold North Atlantic water. You are not online. It is July of 1858. You are a baleen whale, and you have changed your mind. The future most not come to pass. The telegraph cable must break.
December 27, 2025 at 2:06 AM
Reposted by C.S.
kjephd.bsky.social
And one that invokes perhaps the most alien body of law to the American tradition in doing it: Roman law!
jamellebouie.net jamelle @jamellebouie.net · 1d
more confirmation that lurking clearly behind this idea of the “heritage american” is a straightforward contempt for the actual history and tradition of this country, such that vermeule has to hallucinate a framework to justify his desire to jettison the clear meaning of the 14th amendment
paolosandro.bsky.social Paolo Sandro @paolosandro.bsky.social · 1d
I had missed this latest delirium by Adrian Vermeule on birthright citizenship

'Common law?! NAH, it's the Roman law of adoption that should govern the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution!'

thenewdigest.substack.com/p/immigratio...
December 27, 2025 at 12:15 AM
cephander.bsky.social
“You’re like if the advice ‘do extracurriculars, it’ll look good on your resume’ was a person”
thereal3ccentric.bsky.social 3ccentric @thereal3ccentric.bsky.social · 5d
What's an insult you'll never forget?
December 26, 2025 at 9:46 PM
Reposted by C.S.
jayhulmepoet.bsky.social
The thing about the Church of England is that it has actual church laws and church courts and church judges and church lawyers and I know this because I've been part of an actual church court case and had to get a pro-bono church lawyer and it was all as wild as you'd expect it to be.
jayhulmepoet.bsky.social Jay Hulme @jayhulmepoet.bsky.social · 1d
I just need you to know that although I am not a church cop I am, as Churchwarden, empowered to arrest people for various church-based nuisances (and am told, every year, at my swearing in, that under no circumstances am I to actually use those powers of arrest).
December 26, 2025 at 6:45 PM
Reposted by C.S.
louisevans.bsky.social
> Roman analogy for citizenship rights
> never mentions the Edict of Caracalla

HACK DETECTED
December 26, 2025 at 8:37 PM
Reposted by C.S.
paolosandro.bsky.social
I had missed this latest delirium by Adrian Vermeule on birthright citizenship

'Common law?! NAH, it's the Roman law of adoption that should govern the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution!'

thenewdigest.substack.com/p/immigratio...
What I suggest is different. Although broadly in the spirit of Aquinas’ two-or-three generations test insofar as it emphasizes the duties rather than the rights of immigrants who becomes citizens, it is derived not from theological principles but from a civil-law analogy — an analogy to the Roman law of adoption. After all, inclusion within “our posterity” may ordinarily arise not only through natural descent, but through legal adoption. In brief, I suggest that the legal immigrant should understand himself as an adopted son of a natural and concretely existing family, the American family, and this brings with it particular duties of filial piety and reverence for that particular family and for its thick heritage and traditions. Our laws as made, interpreted and applied should reflect that understanding as well. Because it is an analogy, not an identity, what I propose is not a set of legal rules to be directly mapped from Roman law into the American legal system. Rather it is a suggestion that the Roman law of adoption rested on a set of discernible principles of legal justice and political morality that represent the spirit of the laws bearing on immigration and citizenship in America — a time-honored mode of legal interpretation here, albeit not an originalist mode. Such principles should affect the interpretation of actually existing legal texts, rules, and doctrines; they should be understood as the soul of our law of citizenship. Needless to say, this does not answer or even purport to speak to all questions bearing on immigration. I do not speak here, for example, to the enforcement of the immigration laws against illegal immigrants, or to prospective questions of policy about exactly how much legal immigration, if any, there should be, and from where. All I address is the question what principles of legal justice and political duty apply, under existing law, to the immigrant who is already here legally. To that end I suggest a conceptual model for understanding the role and obligations of that immigrant — what justice classically understood requires of him.
December 26, 2025 at 6:05 PM
Reposted by C.S.
paulhaine.bsky.social
Watching THE GREEN KNIGHT again
April 22, 2024 at 7:43 PM
Reposted by C.S.
goobermunch.bsky.social
I just threw out a Roman Legion’s monthly pay in salt.
December 26, 2025 at 1:27 AM
Reposted by C.S.
anthonymkreis.bsky.social
The anti-birthright citizenship element in the legal academy has all the hallmarks of a high school debate club and none of actual scholarship.
December 23, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Reposted by C.S.
matthewhahn.com
While I was in prison, I was the food procurement clerk. It was my job to work with the first cook to design the daily food menu and then make sure the men were fed on a budget of $2.60 per person per day.

How I helped make the best Christmas prison meal, a thread.
December 24, 2025 at 11:27 PM
Reposted by C.S.
doubleemmartin.bsky.social
Extremely funny to call the pope “holier-than-thou”
December 25, 2025 at 4:05 AM
Reposted by C.S.
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
Lawgeeks, this one is short, but worth a read. I realize it's Christmas Eve. Flag it and come back to it Friday. (I'll try to remember to repost it then. Have a lovely holiday, friends.)
gabrielmalor.bsky.social Gabriel Malor @gabrielmalor.bsky.social · 3d
Christmas Eve Drop:

Fed. judge quashes yet another attempt by Trump's DOJ to get the personal data of trans patients and former patients, and does so in sarcastic and angry fashion calling out the administration's ill-intent and lack of good faith.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Assuming the United States has any legitimate need for the information sought ‒ and that it likewise requires longitudinal data ‒ the solution is, and always has been, as plain as the nose on one’s face. Longitudinality may be preserved by anonymization of patients.
December 25, 2025 at 2:48 AM