rootbeer ginsburg
@rootbeerginsburg.bsky.social
A "lawyer's lawyer"
There is so much going on here
Noteworthy use of term “Trump Department of Justice” in this public statement
December 22, 2025 at 1:58 AM
There is so much going on here
Aren’t they even just a little bit embarrassed?
BREAKING: Judges Rao and Walker — both Trump appointees — issue an "administrative stay" blocking Judge Boasberg's contempt proceedings set to begin on Monday.
The administrative stay is issued over the objection of Judge Childs, a Biden appointee.
The administrative stay is issued over the objection of Judge Childs, a Biden appointee.
December 13, 2025 at 1:26 AM
Aren’t they even just a little bit embarrassed?
Reposted by rootbeer ginsburg
When Article II says "the executive power" is vested in the president, it means *all* the executive power--including the powers of all the state executives
So when can we expect the Wurman article in defense of the president having state-level pardon powers?
December 12, 2025 at 1:56 AM
When Article II says "the executive power" is vested in the president, it means *all* the executive power--including the powers of all the state executives
The NYT needs to add the word “purports” to their style guide
I’ve said this before, but it would be healthy for our republic if news organizations didn’t treat anti-constitutional or extralegal perversions as horse race coverage with winners and losers.
December 12, 2025 at 2:06 AM
The NYT needs to add the word “purports” to their style guide
Ok but it is pretty common for someone else to draft a decoration for a witness
A senior ICE official just admitted in an evidentiary hearing in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case that someone else drafted his declaration in the case and he didn’t know what certain words meant.
November 21, 2025 at 2:29 AM
Ok but it is pretty common for someone else to draft a decoration for a witness
Reposted by rootbeer ginsburg
Pam Bondi will not have a license to practice law when this is all over. You can’t stay a bar member and agree to investigate only members of one political party for child sexual abuse but not members of the other. And, you can’t do it after previously saying no one else could be charged.
November 15, 2025 at 12:29 AM
Pam Bondi will not have a license to practice law when this is all over. You can’t stay a bar member and agree to investigate only members of one political party for child sexual abuse but not members of the other. And, you can’t do it after previously saying no one else could be charged.
I’ll say this ahead of the midterms—the more wedges driven between centrist dems in congress and the progressive dem base, the better!
November 10, 2025 at 2:16 PM
I’ll say this ahead of the midterms—the more wedges driven between centrist dems in congress and the progressive dem base, the better!
Idk this argument (albeit an alternative one) is maybe a little too cute for me. The substantive meaning of what he was affirming was clear.
Read this footnote
Comey firmly denies misleading Congress in his 2020 testimony at the heart of this case, or the 2017 testimony the relevant passage cites.
Conceptually, however, it doesn't matter. He's being prosecuted for a statement that legally can't be false, he says.
Comey firmly denies misleading Congress in his 2020 testimony at the heart of this case, or the 2017 testimony the relevant passage cites.
Conceptually, however, it doesn't matter. He's being prosecuted for a statement that legally can't be false, he says.
![Mr. Comey firmly maintains that his prior testimony was truthful. But for purposes of the literal truth defense, the truthfulness of the prior testimony is irrelevant. Mr. Comey can truthfully “stand by” prior testimony—even if the government were correct (and it is not) that the prior testimony was false. Accordingly, the statement that Mr. Comey “stand[s] by” his prior testimony cannot serve as the basis for a false statement charge](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:353gzbhcjbznfxegvayffqek/bafkreidddwjontr5mcphq5ugejqyj2feawvfbcie6blmsbpeyhkztoprqq@jpeg)
October 31, 2025 at 1:36 AM
Idk this argument (albeit an alternative one) is maybe a little too cute for me. The substantive meaning of what he was affirming was clear.
Reposted by rootbeer ginsburg
it makes me incandescently furious that roberts invented the idea of banning coercive conditions on funding to kill medicaid expansion and refuses to do a single thing about the fact that the trump administration's entire deal is "coercive conditions on funding"
October 2, 2025 at 10:15 PM
it makes me incandescently furious that roberts invented the idea of banning coercive conditions on funding to kill medicaid expansion and refuses to do a single thing about the fact that the trump administration's entire deal is "coercive conditions on funding"