D.M. Ridley
@ridleydm.bsky.social
Immigration law? I would love to be able to just up and move to the EU if I wanted.
December 13, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Immigration law? I would love to be able to just up and move to the EU if I wanted.
Ans I remain convinced that him becoming increasingly senile and incapable is better for the country's prospects of ultimately crushing Trumpism than his being replaced with several years of JD Vance. So I'll take this as perversely good news.
December 13, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Ans I remain convinced that him becoming increasingly senile and incapable is better for the country's prospects of ultimately crushing Trumpism than his being replaced with several years of JD Vance. So I'll take this as perversely good news.
There is pushing for change and then there is hoping for a miracle, but I hope you're right. I am pretty sure we are going to need to vote these bastards out rather than persuade them.
December 12, 2025 at 12:11 PM
There is pushing for change and then there is hoping for a miracle, but I hope you're right. I am pretty sure we are going to need to vote these bastards out rather than persuade them.
Lol I don't exactly know a lot of Republican Senators.
December 12, 2025 at 2:51 AM
Lol I don't exactly know a lot of Republican Senators.
I'm not advocating this. I would back it today and so would all my Congresspeople. I'm talking about the willingness of Republicans, who as a general matter have no political beliefs other than worship or terror of Trump. You think there are votes to remove Trump now?
December 12, 2025 at 1:29 AM
I'm not advocating this. I would back it today and so would all my Congresspeople. I'm talking about the willingness of Republicans, who as a general matter have no political beliefs other than worship or terror of Trump. You think there are votes to remove Trump now?
I did say right now. It is possible we will get to a point before 2029 where this is realistic. But sadly I think that point is a ways off.
December 11, 2025 at 5:54 PM
I did say right now. It is possible we will get to a point before 2029 where this is realistic. But sadly I think that point is a ways off.
You many not be able to quantify it exactly but the odds that a supermajority of Congress votes to remove Trump is indistinguishable from zero right now.
December 11, 2025 at 4:08 PM
You many not be able to quantify it exactly but the odds that a supermajority of Congress votes to remove Trump is indistinguishable from zero right now.
The right answer is yes.
Octopuses are delicious and fast growing. I'm delighted to see them farmed and would gladly eat them more often.
And don't kid yourself, they'd rip your head off for no reason.
Octopuses are delicious and fast growing. I'm delighted to see them farmed and would gladly eat them more often.
And don't kid yourself, they'd rip your head off for no reason.
December 10, 2025 at 6:04 PM
The right answer is yes.
Octopuses are delicious and fast growing. I'm delighted to see them farmed and would gladly eat them more often.
And don't kid yourself, they'd rip your head off for no reason.
Octopuses are delicious and fast growing. I'm delighted to see them farmed and would gladly eat them more often.
And don't kid yourself, they'd rip your head off for no reason.
Huh. Gross. Thanks.
December 10, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Huh. Gross. Thanks.
What is FIRE doing or pushing that is a surrender to bigotry? I thought they were a pro-free-speech org.
December 10, 2025 at 3:21 PM
What is FIRE doing or pushing that is a surrender to bigotry? I thought they were a pro-free-speech org.
So by this theory why don't Justices?
December 10, 2025 at 12:44 AM
So by this theory why don't Justices?
It's a nice principle but I don't see how it wouldn't lead to wild changes in the law on big ticket issues. I don't want to see, e.g., abortion become a right and stop being a right and become a right and stop being a right in quick succession.
December 9, 2025 at 12:21 PM
It's a nice principle but I don't see how it wouldn't lead to wild changes in the law on big ticket issues. I don't want to see, e.g., abortion become a right and stop being a right and become a right and stop being a right in quick succession.
Panel rotation also doesn't buy you much since it still makes a big difference who is in the pool.
I think the key is to change the composition so each confirmation isn't so life or death.
I think the key is to change the composition so each confirmation isn't so life or death.
December 9, 2025 at 11:47 AM
Panel rotation also doesn't buy you much since it still makes a big difference who is in the pool.
I think the key is to change the composition so each confirmation isn't so life or death.
I think the key is to change the composition so each confirmation isn't so life or death.
Speaking as an appellate lawyer, it'd make all the difference. We deal with it at the circuit court level because you always have further appeals and panels bind future panels, but neither is true at the Supreme Court.
December 9, 2025 at 11:47 AM
Speaking as an appellate lawyer, it'd make all the difference. We deal with it at the circuit court level because you always have further appeals and panels bind future panels, but neither is true at the Supreme Court.
Ah, got it. I agree.
December 8, 2025 at 8:36 PM
Ah, got it. I agree.
Two problems with this: one, this leads to the same situation as the Senate where small, rural states have disproportionate power (and thus makes the Court *more* reliably Republican); and two, if we want to get back to a world of precedents, constantly scrambling panels is counterproductive.
December 8, 2025 at 8:33 PM
Two problems with this: one, this leads to the same situation as the Senate where small, rural states have disproportionate power (and thus makes the Court *more* reliably Republican); and two, if we want to get back to a world of precedents, constantly scrambling panels is counterproductive.
In context, "packing" means increasing the number of Justices.
December 8, 2025 at 8:32 PM
In context, "packing" means increasing the number of Justices.
Still not quite right, but I appreciate your backtrack and your implicit concession that your first attempt was a lie.
And no, I didn't expect you to vote for Harris. Why would you vote against Trump? Your entire political philosophy is to crush Democrats. It's not like you care about Gaza.
And no, I didn't expect you to vote for Harris. Why would you vote against Trump? Your entire political philosophy is to crush Democrats. It's not like you care about Gaza.
Tru.mp
December 8, 2025 at 5:42 PM
Still not quite right, but I appreciate your backtrack and your implicit concession that your first attempt was a lie.
And no, I didn't expect you to vote for Harris. Why would you vote against Trump? Your entire political philosophy is to crush Democrats. It's not like you care about Gaza.
And no, I didn't expect you to vote for Harris. Why would you vote against Trump? Your entire political philosophy is to crush Democrats. It's not like you care about Gaza.
The problem there is you kind of need consistency to make sure final decisions stay final. But that's another potential approach, I agree.
My thought is that a regular cadence would keep it from seeming like a generational opportunity.
My thought is that a regular cadence would keep it from seeming like a generational opportunity.
December 8, 2025 at 5:39 PM
The problem there is you kind of need consistency to make sure final decisions stay final. But that's another potential approach, I agree.
My thought is that a regular cadence would keep it from seeming like a generational opportunity.
My thought is that a regular cadence would keep it from seeming like a generational opportunity.
You're trying to deflect from the fact that you lied. This is not "promising to drop bombs" and you know it.
Worse, it's an argument you deployed to elect someone even less likely to end the carnage.
Don't dare pretend you have a shred of moral high ground or credibility, you MAGAt.
Worse, it's an argument you deployed to elect someone even less likely to end the carnage.
Don't dare pretend you have a shred of moral high ground or credibility, you MAGAt.
December 8, 2025 at 5:04 PM
Agreed. One only has so many characters. My own preference would be to up it to 13 active justices and let Presidents appoint one every two years regardless of retirements/deaths, but have most cases decided by a panel of the juniormost 13. So you get a regular cadence that tracks elections.
December 8, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Agreed. One only has so many characters. My own preference would be to up it to 13 active justices and let Presidents appoint one every two years regardless of retirements/deaths, but have most cases decided by a panel of the juniormost 13. So you get a regular cadence that tracks elections.
Why , so that you can lie some more to elect Republicans?
December 8, 2025 at 5:02 PM
Why , so that you can lie some more to elect Republicans?
You're trying to deflect from the fact that you lied. This is not "promising to drop bombs" and you know it.
Worse, it's an argument you deployed to elect someone even less likely to end the carnage.
Don't dare pretend you have a shred of moral high ground or credibility, you MAGAt.
Worse, it's an argument you deployed to elect someone even less likely to end the carnage.
Don't dare pretend you have a shred of moral high ground or credibility, you MAGAt.
December 8, 2025 at 4:53 PM
You're trying to deflect from the fact that you lied. This is not "promising to drop bombs" and you know it.
Worse, it's an argument you deployed to elect someone even less likely to end the carnage.
Don't dare pretend you have a shred of moral high ground or credibility, you MAGAt.
Worse, it's an argument you deployed to elect someone even less likely to end the carnage.
Don't dare pretend you have a shred of moral high ground or credibility, you MAGAt.
It doesn't give them to the US President to drop. You're disingenuously conflating Israel's conduct with Harris's, because it suits your political goal of trying to defeat Democrats no matter the cost to Palestinians or anyone else.
December 8, 2025 at 4:48 PM
It doesn't give them to the US President to drop. You're disingenuously conflating Israel's conduct with Harris's, because it suits your political goal of trying to defeat Democrats no matter the cost to Palestinians or anyone else.