Harsh Sancheti
@hvsancheti.bsky.social
LOL. That this tweet can now apply to more than one British princeling is just 🧑🍳 💋
January 21, 2026 at 11:32 PM
LOL. That this tweet can now apply to more than one British princeling is just 🧑🍳 💋
What’s your favorite dish?
January 21, 2026 at 11:24 PM
What’s your favorite dish?
Paleontology please.
January 20, 2026 at 1:10 AM
Paleontology please.
Will, you marry (are truly) me is what the Earl of Oxford said when he handed over a sheaf of his plays to an actor from Stratford-upon-Avon.
January 19, 2026 at 6:32 PM
Will, you marry (are truly) me is what the Earl of Oxford said when he handed over a sheaf of his plays to an actor from Stratford-upon-Avon.
So what you are saying is there’s a chance?
January 19, 2026 at 5:46 PM
So what you are saying is there’s a chance?
Kickstart a new WTO round in a post-Trump world…
January 19, 2026 at 2:17 AM
Kickstart a new WTO round in a post-Trump world…
True but great lawyering is also about identifying and mitigating risks.
There are very few cases where rolling the dice is worth it rather than a (messy) compromise.
There are very few cases where rolling the dice is worth it rather than a (messy) compromise.
January 18, 2026 at 12:56 AM
True but great lawyering is also about identifying and mitigating risks.
There are very few cases where rolling the dice is worth it rather than a (messy) compromise.
There are very few cases where rolling the dice is worth it rather than a (messy) compromise.
To be more precise, he sucks because:
1. He has no principles and just does whatever the RW legal movement demands of him.
2. He can’t see around corners which is how he got himself into this jam.
It’s our fate to be ruled by mediocre hacks.
1. He has no principles and just does whatever the RW legal movement demands of him.
2. He can’t see around corners which is how he got himself into this jam.
It’s our fate to be ruled by mediocre hacks.
January 16, 2026 at 10:55 AM
To be more precise, he sucks because:
1. He has no principles and just does whatever the RW legal movement demands of him.
2. He can’t see around corners which is how he got himself into this jam.
It’s our fate to be ruled by mediocre hacks.
1. He has no principles and just does whatever the RW legal movement demands of him.
2. He can’t see around corners which is how he got himself into this jam.
It’s our fate to be ruled by mediocre hacks.
He changed his mind because it’s ridiculous to hold that taking race into account for 4th amendment purposes is A-OK but constitutionally problematic for VRA purposes as he intends to hold in Callais.
The pressure campaign has embarrassed him, yes, but also he just sucks as a jurist.
The pressure campaign has embarrassed him, yes, but also he just sucks as a jurist.
January 16, 2026 at 10:52 AM
He changed his mind because it’s ridiculous to hold that taking race into account for 4th amendment purposes is A-OK but constitutionally problematic for VRA purposes as he intends to hold in Callais.
The pressure campaign has embarrassed him, yes, but also he just sucks as a jurist.
The pressure campaign has embarrassed him, yes, but also he just sucks as a jurist.
Translation: I’m tired of Uber-driving.
January 12, 2026 at 10:46 PM
Translation: I’m tired of Uber-driving.
After 250 years we finally achieved angelic government.
January 8, 2026 at 11:29 PM
After 250 years we finally achieved angelic government.
You thought condensed too?
January 2, 2026 at 11:23 PM
You thought condensed too?
3d would UPL + attempt to circumvent fiduciary duties owed by attorneys to clients.
4th would be to investigate possible violation under champerty statutes/case-law.
Probably more + kitchen sink you can throw at them.
Sounds like probably some light fraud/misreps needed to get ppl to assign.
4th would be to investigate possible violation under champerty statutes/case-law.
Probably more + kitchen sink you can throw at them.
Sounds like probably some light fraud/misreps needed to get ppl to assign.
December 18, 2025 at 7:18 PM
3d would UPL + attempt to circumvent fiduciary duties owed by attorneys to clients.
4th would be to investigate possible violation under champerty statutes/case-law.
Probably more + kitchen sink you can throw at them.
Sounds like probably some light fraud/misreps needed to get ppl to assign.
4th would be to investigate possible violation under champerty statutes/case-law.
Probably more + kitchen sink you can throw at them.
Sounds like probably some light fraud/misreps needed to get ppl to assign.
That term + overall pic makes it sound like a contract of adhesion.
That’s 1st line of attack.
2nd would be equitable interest remains with assignor until/if consideration moves.
There might also be formality problems with assignment depending on state laws.
That’s 1st line of attack.
2nd would be equitable interest remains with assignor until/if consideration moves.
There might also be formality problems with assignment depending on state laws.
December 18, 2025 at 7:15 PM
That term + overall pic makes it sound like a contract of adhesion.
That’s 1st line of attack.
2nd would be equitable interest remains with assignor until/if consideration moves.
There might also be formality problems with assignment depending on state laws.
That’s 1st line of attack.
2nd would be equitable interest remains with assignor until/if consideration moves.
There might also be formality problems with assignment depending on state laws.
3. Is assignment rescindable by either party? Might make a significant difference.
Whether UPL or no, seems dodgy as hell. What’s the goal here - resist enforcement?
Whether UPL or no, seems dodgy as hell. What’s the goal here - resist enforcement?
December 18, 2025 at 6:28 PM
3. Is assignment rescindable by either party? Might make a significant difference.
Whether UPL or no, seems dodgy as hell. What’s the goal here - resist enforcement?
Whether UPL or no, seems dodgy as hell. What’s the goal here - resist enforcement?
I’m still hung up on your first sentence. 3 ways to analyze:
1. This is a sham assignment b/c unsupported by consideration or discretionary consideration (depends on K specifics).
2. Not a valid/complete transfer of debt because equitable or other interest remains with assignor.
1. This is a sham assignment b/c unsupported by consideration or discretionary consideration (depends on K specifics).
2. Not a valid/complete transfer of debt because equitable or other interest remains with assignor.
December 18, 2025 at 6:26 PM
I’m still hung up on your first sentence. 3 ways to analyze:
1. This is a sham assignment b/c unsupported by consideration or discretionary consideration (depends on K specifics).
2. Not a valid/complete transfer of debt because equitable or other interest remains with assignor.
1. This is a sham assignment b/c unsupported by consideration or discretionary consideration (depends on K specifics).
2. Not a valid/complete transfer of debt because equitable or other interest remains with assignor.
Stealing jokes from Fackham Hall, tsk tsk.
December 16, 2025 at 6:06 PM
Stealing jokes from Fackham Hall, tsk tsk.
Triathletes get their hands on Santa.
December 14, 2025 at 3:31 AM
Triathletes get their hands on Santa.
Anonymous speech is the only fair example, and that was one opinion.
There are many claims that Scalia recanted his support for Chevron. Not adjudicating them, or making a methodological claim, but you and I both know they exist.
ED v. Smith survived precisely because it was Scalia’s opinion.
There are many claims that Scalia recanted his support for Chevron. Not adjudicating them, or making a methodological claim, but you and I both know they exist.
ED v. Smith survived precisely because it was Scalia’s opinion.
December 14, 2025 at 2:46 AM
Anonymous speech is the only fair example, and that was one opinion.
There are many claims that Scalia recanted his support for Chevron. Not adjudicating them, or making a methodological claim, but you and I both know they exist.
ED v. Smith survived precisely because it was Scalia’s opinion.
There are many claims that Scalia recanted his support for Chevron. Not adjudicating them, or making a methodological claim, but you and I both know they exist.
ED v. Smith survived precisely because it was Scalia’s opinion.
To be fair, he is making a point about the competitiveness of the UK vis-a-vis other countries.
He is wrong, but let’s represent his views accurately before we reject it.
He is wrong, but let’s represent his views accurately before we reject it.
December 14, 2025 at 2:41 AM
To be fair, he is making a point about the competitiveness of the UK vis-a-vis other countries.
He is wrong, but let’s represent his views accurately before we reject it.
He is wrong, but let’s represent his views accurately before we reject it.
That’s not even close to an accurate description of what the Court is doing.
Questioning the rightness of Scalia’s views has become inconceivable for the Trump 3. (except, possibly, and only implicitly Gorsuch on Indian law).
Which Scalia decision have they rejected?
Questioning the rightness of Scalia’s views has become inconceivable for the Trump 3. (except, possibly, and only implicitly Gorsuch on Indian law).
Which Scalia decision have they rejected?
December 14, 2025 at 2:38 AM
That’s not even close to an accurate description of what the Court is doing.
Questioning the rightness of Scalia’s views has become inconceivable for the Trump 3. (except, possibly, and only implicitly Gorsuch on Indian law).
Which Scalia decision have they rejected?
Questioning the rightness of Scalia’s views has become inconceivable for the Trump 3. (except, possibly, and only implicitly Gorsuch on Indian law).
Which Scalia decision have they rejected?
The weirdness is not Taft but Scalia.
The Court has reached a weird place where Scalia dissents are given greater weight than its own precedents.
Has the Court consciously departed from Scalia’s views on an open issue once the Trump 3 took the bench?
The Court has reached a weird place where Scalia dissents are given greater weight than its own precedents.
Has the Court consciously departed from Scalia’s views on an open issue once the Trump 3 took the bench?
December 14, 2025 at 2:01 AM
The weirdness is not Taft but Scalia.
The Court has reached a weird place where Scalia dissents are given greater weight than its own precedents.
Has the Court consciously departed from Scalia’s views on an open issue once the Trump 3 took the bench?
The Court has reached a weird place where Scalia dissents are given greater weight than its own precedents.
Has the Court consciously departed from Scalia’s views on an open issue once the Trump 3 took the bench?
Also, relatedly, Pluribus is obviously about God.
December 14, 2025 at 1:44 AM
Also, relatedly, Pluribus is obviously about God.
We all know that it’s a world constantly being improvised and there is no consistency or masterplan.
Most shows - even gripping ones- fall apart after 1 season.
To attempt to make sense of the world based on incomplete information is pretty much the definition of being human.
Leave us be.
Most shows - even gripping ones- fall apart after 1 season.
To attempt to make sense of the world based on incomplete information is pretty much the definition of being human.
Leave us be.
December 14, 2025 at 1:43 AM
We all know that it’s a world constantly being improvised and there is no consistency or masterplan.
Most shows - even gripping ones- fall apart after 1 season.
To attempt to make sense of the world based on incomplete information is pretty much the definition of being human.
Leave us be.
Most shows - even gripping ones- fall apart after 1 season.
To attempt to make sense of the world based on incomplete information is pretty much the definition of being human.
Leave us be.
ICE visits the spirit of Xmas.
December 13, 2025 at 2:56 AM
ICE visits the spirit of Xmas.