Alexander Winn
@alexanderwinn.bsky.social
This page is personal. The views expressed are my own.
That requires a Constitutional amendment.
December 6, 2025 at 4:19 AM
That requires a Constitutional amendment.
I find it curious that progressives have this abiding idea that the word Court has no meaning whatsoever.
December 6, 2025 at 4:18 AM
I find it curious that progressives have this abiding idea that the word Court has no meaning whatsoever.
Do you ever get sad when you realise probably 70-80% of the non law people and even maybe 20% of the law people on here will not be bothered reading any of this because they're already totally blackpilled, and will just argue you don't know what you're talking about?
December 5, 2025 at 7:59 PM
Do you ever get sad when you realise probably 70-80% of the non law people and even maybe 20% of the law people on here will not be bothered reading any of this because they're already totally blackpilled, and will just argue you don't know what you're talking about?
Love the US but sorry, you are going down.
December 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM
Love the US but sorry, you are going down.
This is very good for those who want birthright citizenship protected.
December 5, 2025 at 7:03 PM
This is very good for those who want birthright citizenship protected.
I have to read it fully as I've told Beau, but there's 2 points sitting there that need to be answered - 1.) Assuming quasi judicial is a legit characterisation, are the agencies in the firing line actually within the scope of that rule? 2.) Are a lot of what e.g. ALJs do actually an Art 3/7A issue?
December 5, 2025 at 1:26 PM
I have to read it fully as I've told Beau, but there's 2 points sitting there that need to be answered - 1.) Assuming quasi judicial is a legit characterisation, are the agencies in the firing line actually within the scope of that rule? 2.) Are a lot of what e.g. ALJs do actually an Art 3/7A issue?
Presumably that excluded holdover litigation, e.g. I recently listened to a case from the 5th Circuit, Starbucks v NLRB, which had a free speech component to it, but was a holdover from Biden era litigation.
December 5, 2025 at 3:32 AM
Presumably that excluded holdover litigation, e.g. I recently listened to a case from the 5th Circuit, Starbucks v NLRB, which had a free speech component to it, but was a holdover from Biden era litigation.
*McKinlay
Sorry iPhone causing issues.
Sorry iPhone causing issues.
December 5, 2025 at 2:22 AM
*McKinlay
Sorry iPhone causing issues.
Sorry iPhone causing issues.
I mean, that’s just the standard Australian legal conservative Constitutional stance I’d read from say Barwick in Mcakinlay. Ironically though this latest decision that everyone is up in arms about at bluesky is being deferential to the legislature!
December 5, 2025 at 2:20 AM
I mean, that’s just the standard Australian legal conservative Constitutional stance I’d read from say Barwick in Mcakinlay. Ironically though this latest decision that everyone is up in arms about at bluesky is being deferential to the legislature!
No that’s totally fine, I get co fused with being American online all the time based on immersion in the subject, and I don’t want to assume your knowledge base, I am sure you are very informed. I just didn’t want you to be misled. Also to be clear, I am very right wing in politics (anti Trump tho).
December 5, 2025 at 2:11 AM
No that’s totally fine, I get co fused with being American online all the time based on immersion in the subject, and I don’t want to assume your knowledge base, I am sure you are very informed. I just didn’t want you to be misled. Also to be clear, I am very right wing in politics (anti Trump tho).
Can I just be clear on one thing - I’m not an American, in fact my alma mata law school is UQ, although I wasn’t in your seminar for contracts. So I am also an outsider, but one who has done an enormous amount of reading generally to be educated on it.
December 5, 2025 at 2:08 AM
Can I just be clear on one thing - I’m not an American, in fact my alma mata law school is UQ, although I wasn’t in your seminar for contracts. So I am also an outsider, but one who has done an enormous amount of reading generally to be educated on it.
Murthy would have been different, FCC non delegation would be different. Smith would already be overturned etc.
December 5, 2025 at 2:02 AM
Murthy would have been different, FCC non delegation would be different. Smith would already be overturned etc.
Obviously I fundamentally disagree with your premises, but taking it on its own basis, 5 Thomases and Gorsuches on the Court would rule very differently on a host of cases, and I can through the different outcomes of cases if you’d like.
December 5, 2025 at 2:01 AM
Obviously I fundamentally disagree with your premises, but taking it on its own basis, 5 Thomases and Gorsuches on the Court would rule very differently on a host of cases, and I can through the different outcomes of cases if you’d like.
Giving Trump 3 more vacancies to fill plus presumably a permission structure to add even more Justices after that. Bold strategy.
December 5, 2025 at 1:57 AM
Giving Trump 3 more vacancies to fill plus presumably a permission structure to add even more Justices after that. Bold strategy.
Please inform the OP who thinks the mere fact an opinion runs long must mean it’s a model of judicial writing and fact finding.
December 5, 2025 at 1:45 AM
Please inform the OP who thinks the mere fact an opinion runs long must mean it’s a model of judicial writing and fact finding.
The dissent was also over a hundred pages long.
December 5, 2025 at 12:52 AM
The dissent was also over a hundred pages long.
Anti juristocracy left in shambles again.
December 4, 2025 at 5:06 AM
Anti juristocracy left in shambles again.
Entirely agree.
December 4, 2025 at 3:54 AM
Entirely agree.
The people calling for guillotines for you aren’t interested in the liberal democratic coalition that I think you have in mind. At best they are opportunists. So I don’t think there’s any tension, just accepting the coalition may be narrower than you thought it was.
December 4, 2025 at 12:34 AM
The people calling for guillotines for you aren’t interested in the liberal democratic coalition that I think you have in mind. At best they are opportunists. So I don’t think there’s any tension, just accepting the coalition may be narrower than you thought it was.
Well he didn’t.
December 4, 2025 at 12:32 AM
Well he didn’t.
Other than treason having an established meaning that won’t wash, charging comes before the trying lol.
December 3, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Other than treason having an established meaning that won’t wash, charging comes before the trying lol.
I think we have to distinguish arresting people on the street way after the event, and where a lot of citizens arrest occur which is contemporaneous or immediately after the commission of the crime, e.g. someone steals a watch, the thief is chased down by the owner or someone else.
December 3, 2025 at 12:07 PM
I think we have to distinguish arresting people on the street way after the event, and where a lot of citizens arrest occur which is contemporaneous or immediately after the commission of the crime, e.g. someone steals a watch, the thief is chased down by the owner or someone else.
had managed to effect an arrest without using lethal force, such as subduing the fake robber. Under your rule in which mistake of fact could never be a defence, that person would be liable even though any reasonable person observing the situation would think they were watching a violent felony.
December 3, 2025 at 12:01 PM
had managed to effect an arrest without using lethal force, such as subduing the fake robber. Under your rule in which mistake of fact could never be a defence, that person would be liable even though any reasonable person observing the situation would think they were watching a violent felony.