@haywoodfloyd.bsky.social
Court reform is table stakes. Anyone who doesn't understand it is necessary to govern is not a serious candidate.
My single issue is who will credibly prosecute the ongoing daily crimes - both by those in this admin and those bribing it. (Which would of course be impossible without court reform.)
My single issue is who will credibly prosecute the ongoing daily crimes - both by those in this admin and those bribing it. (Which would of course be impossible without court reform.)
December 8, 2025 at 4:26 AM
Court reform is table stakes. Anyone who doesn't understand it is necessary to govern is not a serious candidate.
My single issue is who will credibly prosecute the ongoing daily crimes - both by those in this admin and those bribing it. (Which would of course be impossible without court reform.)
My single issue is who will credibly prosecute the ongoing daily crimes - both by those in this admin and those bribing it. (Which would of course be impossible without court reform.)
Though there will probably be at least two votes for this on the current SCOTUS.
December 8, 2025 at 1:54 AM
Though there will probably be at least two votes for this on the current SCOTUS.
For all of his many flaws, I don't think Scalia would think what Wurman is trying to pull here is anything approaching textualism.
(Again, I'm not arguing that Scalia was a faithful textualist, but Wurman's are an abomination several orders of magnitude greater than anything I've seen.)
(Again, I'm not arguing that Scalia was a faithful textualist, but Wurman's are an abomination several orders of magnitude greater than anything I've seen.)
December 8, 2025 at 1:52 AM
For all of his many flaws, I don't think Scalia would think what Wurman is trying to pull here is anything approaching textualism.
(Again, I'm not arguing that Scalia was a faithful textualist, but Wurman's are an abomination several orders of magnitude greater than anything I've seen.)
(Again, I'm not arguing that Scalia was a faithful textualist, but Wurman's are an abomination several orders of magnitude greater than anything I've seen.)
I have a feeling it's going to be something that puts him in contention for a Darwin Award.
December 8, 2025 at 1:48 AM
I have a feeling it's going to be something that puts him in contention for a Darwin Award.
"This" being what Wurman is trying, ofc.
And this isn't a "no true Scotsman" argument - Wurman is by bad faith slight of hand turning textualism completely on its head - irrespective of whether it's a good approach to interpretation.
And this isn't a "no true Scotsman" argument - Wurman is by bad faith slight of hand turning textualism completely on its head - irrespective of whether it's a good approach to interpretation.
December 8, 2025 at 1:45 AM
"This" being what Wurman is trying, ofc.
And this isn't a "no true Scotsman" argument - Wurman is by bad faith slight of hand turning textualism completely on its head - irrespective of whether it's a good approach to interpretation.
And this isn't a "no true Scotsman" argument - Wurman is by bad faith slight of hand turning textualism completely on its head - irrespective of whether it's a good approach to interpretation.
More importantly than what the 19th century public thought the 14th A meant, is the Constitutional settlement under which we have lived our entire lives. That's the reason the 14th A is valid law and not just a statement of how a bunch of dead people thought it should work.
Jamelle makes this point
Jamelle makes this point
also, let’s say wurman is right. well, we have had nearly 160 years of unlimited birthright citizenship that has been affirmed again and again by generations of Americans. whatever the original intent, that is what the birthright clause *means*.
December 8, 2025 at 1:41 AM
More importantly than what the 19th century public thought the 14th A meant, is the Constitutional settlement under which we have lived our entire lives. That's the reason the 14th A is valid law and not just a statement of how a bunch of dead people thought it should work.
Jamelle makes this point
Jamelle makes this point
Scalia's arg. for textualism (against those who say we don't need to live under the dead hand of the 18th/19th adopters) is it constrains jurists who would otherwise rewrite the Constitution to their personal prefs.
W/O conceding to Scalia's point, this is not textualism in any meaningful sense.
W/O conceding to Scalia's point, this is not textualism in any meaningful sense.
December 8, 2025 at 1:36 AM
Scalia's arg. for textualism (against those who say we don't need to live under the dead hand of the 18th/19th adopters) is it constrains jurists who would otherwise rewrite the Constitution to their personal prefs.
W/O conceding to Scalia's point, this is not textualism in any meaningful sense.
W/O conceding to Scalia's point, this is not textualism in any meaningful sense.
But then the Senator might not come on the show and they would have to work to produce content rather than rely upon "access journalism.". Oh no! (Sadface.emoji)
December 7, 2025 at 7:10 PM
But then the Senator might not come on the show and they would have to work to produce content rather than rely upon "access journalism.". Oh no! (Sadface.emoji)
Meta's CTO was paid $20 million this year, but $18.5 million was shares that vest over 4 years, so he got about $6 million this year.
If you pay 100 people $5 million per each for the past 10 years, that's $5 billion. Let's double that for fun.
Where did the other $67 billion go?
If you pay 100 people $5 million per each for the past 10 years, that's $5 billion. Let's double that for fun.
Where did the other $67 billion go?
December 6, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Meta's CTO was paid $20 million this year, but $18.5 million was shares that vest over 4 years, so he got about $6 million this year.
If you pay 100 people $5 million per each for the past 10 years, that's $5 billion. Let's double that for fun.
Where did the other $67 billion go?
If you pay 100 people $5 million per each for the past 10 years, that's $5 billion. Let's double that for fun.
Where did the other $67 billion go?
The competitive election in R+22 TN-07 might make the GOP little nervous. Anything close to that on this map would make this a massive dummymander.
December 2, 2025 at 12:04 AM
The competitive election in R+22 TN-07 might make the GOP little nervous. Anything close to that on this map would make this a massive dummymander.
I'd go further than "largely interested" and straight to GLHM's point that the institutions are run by abject cowards.
bsky.app/profile/goli...
bsky.app/profile/goli...
the primary thing that TPUSA provides to young conservatives is a blueprint for weaponizing the abject cowardice of university administrators against individual teachers and instructors, and university admins should take a long look in the mirror and think about what that says about them
OU has put the professor here on administrative leave:
December 1, 2025 at 8:55 PM
I'd go further than "largely interested" and straight to GLHM's point that the institutions are run by abject cowards.
bsky.app/profile/goli...
bsky.app/profile/goli...
A bit of an understatement.
December 1, 2025 at 8:37 PM
A bit of an understatement.
They aren't ashamed, they are legitimately scared, which is good.
December 1, 2025 at 8:31 PM
They aren't ashamed, they are legitimately scared, which is good.
Every time I see this chart I am reminded that the small uptick from 28% to 31% in 1991 (still well under half the rate in 1980) utterly wrecked GHW Bush with the GOP and crippled him in 1992.
November 30, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Every time I see this chart I am reminded that the small uptick from 28% to 31% in 1991 (still well under half the rate in 1980) utterly wrecked GHW Bush with the GOP and crippled him in 1992.
Even if Dems don't take Senate (and are stuck with this SCOTUS), a Dem administration can give SCOTUS a choice as to whether pardons can be undone when used to encourage criminal conduct. There are ways to hold Hegseth accountable either way SCOTUS rules, and they might not want to pick door no. 2.
November 30, 2025 at 5:11 AM
Even if Dems don't take Senate (and are stuck with this SCOTUS), a Dem administration can give SCOTUS a choice as to whether pardons can be undone when used to encourage criminal conduct. There are ways to hold Hegseth accountable either way SCOTUS rules, and they might not want to pick door no. 2.
Don't need the Hauge. We can try them for capital murder in the US District Court for DC starting in January 2028.
November 29, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Don't need the Hauge. We can try them for capital murder in the US District Court for DC starting in January 2028.
Dems need to make collaboration with these crooks a very risky proposition. Next Dem Congress can cut off Northwestern's federal funding completely for two years.
November 29, 2025 at 8:36 AM
Dems need to make collaboration with these crooks a very risky proposition. Next Dem Congress can cut off Northwestern's federal funding completely for two years.
Agree that political will is the limiting factor. The last time the US had the will, it did so using appropriate gimmicks (the way former Confederate states were forced to ratify the Reconstruction amendments).
November 29, 2025 at 4:58 AM
Agree that political will is the limiting factor. The last time the US had the will, it did so using appropriate gimmicks (the way former Confederate states were forced to ratify the Reconstruction amendments).
The way around Article V is to exploit the other defect in the current Constitution (plus extreme constitutional hardball).
After adding a bunch of Justices to SCOTUS (which is absolutely table stakes), you don't admit DC as a state, you admit it as 150 states.
After adding a bunch of Justices to SCOTUS (which is absolutely table stakes), you don't admit DC as a state, you admit it as 150 states.
November 29, 2025 at 4:49 AM
The way around Article V is to exploit the other defect in the current Constitution (plus extreme constitutional hardball).
After adding a bunch of Justices to SCOTUS (which is absolutely table stakes), you don't admit DC as a state, you admit it as 150 states.
After adding a bunch of Justices to SCOTUS (which is absolutely table stakes), you don't admit DC as a state, you admit it as 150 states.
Yes, except the argument to SCOTUS would be made when a Dem president is in office and able to immediately act upon it. Accountability for these criminals one way the other. If the pardons are found void, then they get due process.
November 29, 2025 at 12:07 AM
Yes, except the argument to SCOTUS would be made when a Dem president is in office and able to immediately act upon it. Accountability for these criminals one way the other. If the pardons are found void, then they get due process.
To your point, a sufficiently motivated Dem president in 2028 can ensure accountability for these war criminals. SCOTUS can either find an exception to the otherwise absolute pardon power so Hegseth et al can be tried, or the Dem president can have them shot and pardon the executioners.
November 29, 2025 at 12:04 AM
To your point, a sufficiently motivated Dem president in 2028 can ensure accountability for these war criminals. SCOTUS can either find an exception to the otherwise absolute pardon power so Hegseth et al can be tried, or the Dem president can have them shot and pardon the executioners.