Julian Davis Mortenson
@jdmortenson.bsky.social
15K followers 1.6K following 4.2K posts
University of Michigan law professor. Legal historian. Constitutional litigator. Walking thorny ground. Probably kidding. Faculty bio at http://bit.ly/jdm-bio
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
smouritsen.bsky.social
Did you know the *18th* century was the *17* hundreds? Stupid and confusing, IMHO.
jdmortenson.bsky.social
interesting, interesting, interesting
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
kenburnside.bsky.social
"So, you really can't armor the back of a knee joint. What happens if I shoot it with a rocket-propelled grenade?"

**GM glowers at me**
jdmortenson.bsky.social
*SCURRIES BACK INTO HOLE, FAR FAR FROM SOCIAL MEDIA*
jdmortenson.bsky.social
Lordy Lordy Lordy I am very glad I’m off the socials
jdmortenson.bsky.social
I

Will

Not

Check

To

See

If

You

Guys

Really

Mean

What

I

Think

You

Mean
jdmortenson.bsky.social
ANTIGRAV INTERTIA DEFLECTORS, KEN
jdmortenson.bsky.social
THIS IS NEUROLINK ERASURE IT WILL NOT STAND
opinionhaver.bsky.social
Maturity is accepting that none of the cool sci-fi things would be practical for an actual military even if they were technologically possible. A mech is just a tank that needs more cover and has more complex maintenance.
jdmortenson.bsky.social
Genuinely don’t know what specific person you mean, just been seeing a fair amount of nonsense on normal people media….
jdmortenson.bsky.social
Gave up on the book beard. Life has interfered too much in the last 5 years 🤪
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
stevevladeck.bsky.social
In light of Judge Immergut's ruling, there's a lot of noise today coming from the President's advisers and supporters about courts not having the power to provide prospective relief against domestic uses of the military.

Via "One First," me on the rather significant early precedent to the contrary:
181. Courts and Domestic Use of the Military
In response to adverse judicial rulings, the President's advisers and supporters are claiming courts lack the power to halt domestic use of the military. A critical early precedent is to the contrary.
www.stevevladeck.com
jdmortenson.bsky.social
I love this reference very very much
jdmortenson.bsky.social
@jedshug.bsky.social of all weeks for me to wear this without particularly thinking about it…
jdmortenson.bsky.social
if someone tells you founding era judges didn’t have a role in adjudicating military affairs, what they’re actually telling you is they don’t know anything about the 18th century
jdmortenson.bsky.social
we are so glad you’re here! This is a terrific—and very important—paper. Really looking forward to discussing it
jdmortenson.bsky.social
yeah you’re right I’m just trying to do the outraged at everyone’s naïveté online know it all thing ; )
jdmortenson.bsky.social
footnote 6 you say, footnote 6, yes, I suppose, I suppose that does ring a vague bell