Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Mark Joseph Stern

@mjsdc.bsky.social

When liberals secured a majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2023, they changed internal procedures—over the objection of the conservative chief justice, who claimed they were taking away her power. Today the justices released MESSY details about the affair...
www.wicourts.gov/sc/rulhear/D...

BRIAN HAGEDORN, J. (concurring). The Wisconsin Supreme
Court is composed of seven justices who are supposed to be members
of the same team. Unlike trial courts, when we act, we do so
collectively. To accomplish this, over the last 175 years, this
court has established various practices and traditions, both
formal and informal. These practices ensure all voices are heard,
create clear lines of decision-making authority, and establish
consistent and neutral processes to govern our case-deciding and
administrative work. Some of these are reflected in formally
adopted Supreme Court Rules, and some in our Internal Operating
Procedures. But the true currency of a court like ours is trust.
When trust is broken like it has been here, every aspect of our
work suffers.
¶2 This all began in the summer of 2023 when four justices
wished to make significant changes to how this court functions.
Fair enough. These modifications could have been pursued through
a process built on collegiality and mutual respect. Instead, my
colleagues pursued a more destructive path.
¶3 The morning our then-newest justice was sworn into
office——August 1, 2023——my four colleagues at that time set off to
reshape our court and the operation of the court system. They had
apparently engaged in significant discussions in the months prior
and decided to force through these changes during our summer
recess, and to do so via email with or without the input of their
other colleagues. They issued a press release triumphantly
announcing that these changes were all about transparency,
accountability, and inclusivity. This was true in the same way

Pearl Harbor was a strike for peace in the Pacific. I will not
rehash every detail (Justice Ziegler's excellent writing recounts
much of the history), but the reader deserves a taste.
¶4 The first shot sounded when my four colleagues fired the
Director of State Courts, who functions as the CEO of
administrative matters for the entire judicial branch. Without
following any established process, one of my colleagues sent an
email proposing that we fire our Director and install a new, preselected interim Director in his place. This happened through
email, over the course of two business days, while the Director
was out of town on state business, during our summer recess. He
never received a performance review indicating concerns; he was
simply told his employment was over. This came just months after
some of these same colleagues emphasized the importance of having
all justices participate in hiring key staff.
¶5 Later that same week, my colleagues proposed dramatic
changes via email affecting both our case-deciding and
administrative responsibilities. The email invited justices to
attend a new, unscheduled meeting of the court later that week to
discuss the proposals. One justice said she could not be there;
another objected to the meeting as outside our court calendar.
The meeting would go forward no matter what, we were told. I
implored my colleagues to reconsider, to treat their fellow
colleagues with the respect they would want if circumstances were
reversed. They refused. The meeting went on as expected, and
with only four members present, they voted to fundamentally remake
our court.

¶7 Among their changes, my colleagues radically altered the
role of the chief justice. They created a new, three-person
administrative committee (on which the chief justice would
ostensibly sit) to take over nearly all of the chief justice's
most important administrative duties. And they did so in the face
of serious objections that these changes violated the Wisconsin
Constitution, which says the chief justice "shall be the
administrative head of the judicial system." Wis. Const. art.
VII, § 4. One justice who in the past championed the
constitutional role of the chief justice suddenly changed course.
Again, these actions stripping the chief justice of powers she had
exercised for as long as anyone could remember were proposed via
email, and were voted on a few days later during an unscheduled
meeting of just four justices during our summer recess. Not
exactly transparent, accountable, and inclusive.
¶8 Another significant series of amendments to our internal
rules involved modifying the way we consider certain kinds of
cases, essentially making it much easier for this court to expedite
cases coming to us outside the normal appeals process. Why the
change? As everyone understood, my colleagues had the not-sosecret goal of swiftly hearing particular politically charged
cases. This was all by design.
¶9 And how did this experiment go? Not well.
Administratively, it was not clear who was in charge. We
experienced significant breakdowns in communication amidst a lack
of clarity about who was doing what. Our staff was often caught
in the middle of a court that did not have established lines of

communication and authority. And when the Director of State Courts
was unceremoniously fired for what many perceived as political
reasons, it sent a shockwave through the system. Furthermore, my
colleagues' changes were not one and done. Throughout the past
two years, they continued to modify the court's procedures in a
similar ad-hoc fashion, often after realizing problems with their
earlier ill-considered changes. This only added to the confusion.
¶10 Finally, at one of the court's internal conferences this
past June, my colleagues shifted course. One of the four announced
she was "withdrawing" her prior votes from the past two years
(which, by the way, is not a thing) with the idea that every
disputed change was now, all of a sudden, reversed. What changed?
Again, it was no mystery. My colleagues wanted to take power away
from then-Chief Justice Annette Ziegler. Such a move ensured that
my colleagues would run the court through the administrative
committee. Following the April 2025 election, they concluded they
would have the votes to elect a chief justice of their choosing
and have a block of votes to support her, so they no longer needed
to seize those powers. This is not a cynical take. It is exactly
what happened.
¶11 What's past is past, however. I have no desire to hold
this against my colleagues, and I am grateful they have changed
course. In fact, I was happy to work collaboratively on many
operational changes reflected in this order, most of which I

November 25, 2025 at 8:32 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Catherine Baksi

@legalhackette.bsky.social

EXCLUSIVE: Jury trials to be scrapped in most cases to tackle court backlog - in @thetimes.com www.thetimes.com/uk/law/artic...

Jury trials to be scrapped in most cases to tackle court backlog

David Lammy, the justice secretary, is proposing that judges hear cases alone for crimes that could result in a sentence of up to five years

www.thetimes.com

November 25, 2025 at 1:12 PM

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

This is sobering analysis that confirms what many of us have known or at least suspected for a while now. The old “poverty line” math is obsolete and hiding a true economic crisis.

If you keep Orshansky's logic—if you maintain her principle that poverty could be defined by the inverse of food's budget share-but update the food share to reflect today's reality, the
multiplier is no longer three.
It becomes sixteen.
Which means if you measured income inadequacy today the way Orshansky measured it in 1963, the threshold for a family of four wouldn't be $31,200.
It would be somewhere between $130,000 and $150,000.

November 25, 2025 at 3:33 PM

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

Did you know a gallon of decent interior latex paint costs around $50-80 now?

elmo is surrounded by flames and the word inflation is on the bottom

Alt: elmo is surrounded by flames and the word inflation is on the bottom

media.tenor.com

November 25, 2025 at 3:07 PM

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

You can simply ignore the anonymous account with the cartoon avatar instead of falling for its obvious argument bait.

November 25, 2025 at 1:48 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Benjamin Riley

@benjaminjriley.bsky.social

Grateful to The Verge for publishing my essay on why large-language models are not going to achieve general intelligence nor push the scientific frontier.

www.theverge.com/ai-artificia...

Is language the same as intelligence? The AI industry desperately needs it to be

The AI boom is based on a fundamental mistake.

www.theverge.com

November 25, 2025 at 12:49 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Tobias Wilson-Bates

@phdhurtbrain.bsky.social

Impossible how good reading is. You mean I just point my face at the paper for a bit and it does a whole update on my brain?

November 23, 2025 at 1:52 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Evan Bernick, a finite mode with a smol hooman and a lorg floof

@evanbernick.bsky.social

Did, uh, anyone notice that when Carville claims in his NYT piece that “defund the police” was bad that the link takes you to an Appeal story about why ”fund the police“ was bad? Any editors, perhaps?

"Defund the police" was a terrible idea. Polling shows that nearly 70 percent of
Americans think the Democratic Party is "out of touch" and that it is more interested
in social issues than economic ones.

'Fund the Police' Backfired-and Gave
Trump More Power Than Ever Democrats spent the last four years running away from police reform. "Funding the police" didn't just help them lose the presidency-it handed a dangerous man an
even stronger police and surveillance state.

https://theappeal.org/fund-the-police-backfired-2024/

November 25, 2025 at 11:26 AM

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

6-0. Still need to work on free throws.

November 25, 2025 at 2:18 AM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Zach Rabiroff

@zachrabiroff.com

Any time corporate executives are in a room together and don't know they're being recorded, the transcript is like: "Christ, I hate our customers. We're agreed that we all hate our customers? Let's lie to the IRS, criminally. Did I mention the Holocaust never happened? Put more lead in our soda."

Parker Molloy @parkermolloy.com · 1d

Campbell's soup VP caught on tape trashing his own brand. Oof. www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2...

In the lawsuit, Garza alleges Bally said Campbell's makes
"highly processed food" for "poor people" and made several derogatory comments about Indian employees, calling them "idiots."
"We have s--t for f**king poor people. Who buys our s--t? | don't buy Campbell's products barely anymore. It's not healthy now that I know what the f—'s in it," part of the recording said. "Bioengineered meat -- I don't wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3-D printer."

November 24, 2025 at 11:32 PM

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

Definitely not a bubble. stocks.apple.com/AL3XUBUYDS2a...

The ‘S&P 493’ reveals a very different U.S. economy — The Washington Post

A few trillion-dollar companies are powering the market’s gains. Here’s what’s happening to most other businesses in the United States.

stocks.apple.com

November 25, 2025 at 12:43 AM

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

Go Cards, go Krogering

November 25, 2025 at 12:37 AM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Reuters Legal

@legal.reuters.com

A rare judicial misconduct complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice that accused a judge of bias in her handling of a challenge to President Donald Trump's ban on transgender troops has been dismissed.

US DOJ's misconduct complaint against judge in transgender military ban case gets tossed

A rare judicial misconduct complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice that accused a judge of bias in her handling of a challenge to President Donald Trump's ban on transgender troops has been dismissed.

reut.rs

November 25, 2025 at 12:30 AM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

CALL FOR PAPERS! The University of Louisville Law Review is hosting a symposium on Defense of Democratic Institutions and is seeking contributing scholars. Paper deadline is December 15. uofllawreview.org/symposium-1

University of Louisville Law Review

The University of Louisville Law Review holds an annual symposium that features the works of authors in a specific area of the law.

uofllawreview.org

November 21, 2025 at 6:46 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

BREAKING: Judge rules Lindsey Halligan's appointment was not valid, thus, she had no authority to present the James Comey or Letitia James indictments and the indictments are dismissed without prejudice.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
JAMES B. COMEY, JR.,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 1:25-cr-00272-MSN
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT ECF NO. 60)
On September 25, 2025, Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, appeared before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Having been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney by the Attorney General just days before, Ms.
Halligan secured a two-count indictment charging former FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr. with
making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
Mr. Comey now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Ms. Halligan, the sole
prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, was unlawfully appointed in violation of 28
U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution's Appointments Clause. As explained below, I agree with Mr.
Comey that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to
present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey's motion and dismiss the indictment without
prejudice.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
LETITIA A. JAMES,
Criminal No. 2:25-cr-00122-JK W
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT (ECE NO. 22)
On October 9, 2025, Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, appeared before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Having been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney by the Attorney General just two weeks before, Ms.
Halligan secured a two-count indictment charging New York Attorney General Letitia James with
bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.
Ms. James now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Ms. Halligan, the sole
prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, was unlawfully appointed in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution's Appointments Clause. As explained below, I agree with Ms.
James that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to
present the indictment, I will grant Ms. James's motion and dismiss the indictment without
prejudice.

November 24, 2025 at 5:47 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

David Dayen

@ddayen.bsky.social

Crazy stats in Tennessee:
-From 2019-22, 40% of companies paid only $100 in franchise tax, including 12% of companies with income over $1 billion.
-63% of corporations paid no excise tax
-over half of state revenues come from a 7% sales tax
-one of 11 states that tax groceries (at 4% rate)

Aftyn Behn: Running for Congress in deep red Tennessee

Aftyn Behn is trying to flip a seat Donald Trump won by 22 points in a December special election. Grocery bills and corporate taxes dominate.

prospect.org

November 24, 2025 at 3:20 PM

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

I love when people ask me why I don't drink. I get right in their face and scream the lyrics to Straight Edge Revenge as loudly as I can.

Joshua Eaton @joshuaeaton.bsky.social · 2d

Asking strangers or near strangers why they don’t drink is both incredibly rude and incredibly common.

If you do it, I *will* make unflattering assumptions about your upbringing.

Kelly J. Baker (she/her) @kellyjbaker.bsky.social · 2d

Just a friendly reminder as we go into the holidays:

Folks don't have to explain to you why they don't drink.

If you offer them a drink and they decline, don't ask them why. It's not your business.

Just offer them something without alcohol to drink instead. And move on.

November 24, 2025 at 2:09 PM

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

I've been very patient but I'm starting to worry that converting all my retirement savings to Dogecoin four years ago isn't going to pay off.

November 24, 2025 at 2:04 PM

Joe Dunman

@joedunman.bsky.social

I get asked a lot about what it's like for the Avalanche to be the best team in the NHL right now, and I try to be honest when I say, "It rules. It rules so hard."

November 24, 2025 at 2:00 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Nelu Balaj

@ulen.bsky.social

They’re doing to America what they did to Christianity
www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i...

They’re doing to America what they did to Christianity | Bill McKibben

Trump’s wrecking-ball approach to America has a precedent: the evangelical perversion of Jesus’s message of radical love to one of hate and aggression

www.theguardian.com

November 24, 2025 at 12:41 AM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Conrad Hackett

@conradhackett.bsky.social

More US adults identify with no religion (29%) than with the Catholic Church (19%) or evangelical Protestant denominations (23%).
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...

Chart shows the religious distribution of US adults.

November 13, 2025 at 6:52 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Conrad Hackett

@conradhackett.bsky.social

40% of Democrats are religiously unaffiliated (Republicans are half as likely to be unaffiliated).

Across measures, Republicans report more religiousness.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/11/20/religiousness-varies-a-lot-by-race-among-democrats-relatively-little-among-republicans/

Chart showing U.S. adults who are Republican or lean toward the GOP are more religious than Democrats and Democratic leaners. For instance, 52% of Republicans say they pray daily, compared with 35% of Democrats. And 41% of Republicans say they go to religious services monthly or more often, compared with 24% of Democrats.

Chart showing about eight-in-ten Republicans identify with a religion, including large majorities of each racial and ethnic group. Democrats are less likely than Republicans to identify with a religion. About six-in-ten Democrats do, while four-in-ten are religiously unaffiliated, meaning they identify as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” when asked about their religion. Most Black Democrats (79%) identify with a religion, as do smaller majorities of Hispanic Democrats (67%) and Asian Democrats (60%). White Democrats are almost evenly divided between those who identify with a religion and those who are religiously unaffiliated. Looking at Christianity

November 23, 2025 at 10:16 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Benjamin Strick

@bendobrown.bsky.social

X rolled out a new feature overnight showing where accounts are based. This network of “Trump-supporting independent women” that claimed to be “real Americans” are based in Thailand.

The photos were stolen from European models & posts pushed pro-Trump lines while targeting Islam and LGBTQ people.

November 23, 2025 at 12:55 PM

Reposted by Joe Dunman

Rob Townsend

@rbtownsend.bsky.social

"While other universities report that the humanities are shrinking, at Berkeley, the opposite is true. The music major is the fastest-growing major on campus. We are finding bigger classrooms because film is exploding. English is back to the numbers we saw 15 years ago. We are hiring" bit.ly/4ohKuOe