Профиль

Nota bene: That was the joke after syntax-splaining. See the 😉?

Nota bene: This is the correct use of the word “literally.” Your welcome. 😉

I will die on this hill like it was Troy or Odysseus’s palace full of suitors (Too soon?) Nolan is on the Mount Rushmore of directors. And his Odyssey is one of the greatest movies of all-time. Just under the tier of Citizen Kane, Oppenheimer… YMMV.

“How could Christopher Nolan make an Odyssey about war trauma, absentee gods, and bad fathers?” — Asked no one who ever actually read the Iliad or the Odyssey.

What is Ancient Greek for sarcasm? Got it: sarkázein, literally "to tear flesh like a dog" or "to sneer"

I would prefer that you not make assumptions about what I really "believe." I have publicly endorsed a plan to add a seat to the Court every 2 years, so each President gets 2 nominations, 1 after the pres election, 1 after the midterms. No seats open by strategic partisan retirements.

If we could do both (win elections and regularly add a seat to the Court every 2 years), I’d do both. But if adding seats even marginally risks losing a presidential election or control over a house, it’s not a close call.

A Democratic court-packing plan is not going to win over all the “dissatisfieds” Dissatisfaction with the Court is on the left & right. Some dissatisfied independents are going to worry the medicine would be worse than the disease. Few people will stay home if there’s no court reform plan.

Siegler just wanted to give Aroldis a chance to notch 2 more Ks. And he delivered

Painful. But Aroldis is still throwing nasty strikes. Filthy

Gotta win some elections before any of this is relevant. And I still worry that Democrats with reasonable court reform proposals get hammered as “court packing” and loses more votes than it mobilizes . High risk for insufficient long-term reward.

Maybe it’s possible — but unlikely.

Maybe. But… I think the political support for an amendment to check future presidential power is probably broader, deeper, and less polarizing than “court expansion,” even if the threshold is much more challenging

This proposed amendment would restore the original public meaning of Article I and Article II, to override the Roberts Court’s non-originalist 20th century imperial presidentialism. I could cite a dozen recent articles on this, but just read Sotomayor’s dissent. It is correct.

No. Removal protections are consistent with original meaning, an executive branch under presidential supervision — able to enforce faithful execution with good cause. Don’t buy the extreme unitary executive theory’s ideological framing of removal at will.

Thirded. I have another idea for an amendments, and here's one that has a shot at ratification: Structural independence for the DOJ and inspectors general. Removal for cause, with a presumption in favor of the officer (the opposite of a presumption of regularity)

Wurman would not answer my questions. Except a half-acknowledgement that he cited something he shouldn't have cited (Bamzai and Prakash), but that's a cop-out. He has written an entire book about the First Congress. It is irresponsible to cite without confirming. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/b...

Birthright Citizenship and Presidential Removal: A Historical Deep DivePodcast Episode · The Blessings of Liberty with Jeffrey Rosen · July 23 · 1h 7mpodcasts.apple.com

Sounds frustratingly and unethically familiar

Just read the Substack: Supreme Court Historical Fact-Check #5: The Nonsense Appointments Clause Claim with No Evidence (Plus anti-birthright nonsense) I explain Roberts’s & Wurman’s digital cherrypicking of sentences out of context: Control-F Around and Find Out open.substack.com/pub/jedshuge...

Daily Supreme Court Historical Fact-Check #5: The Nonsense Appointments Clause Claim with No EvidenceNeither Roberts nor unitary theorists could cite one Founding-era source who agreed with their conclusion, but zero evidence won't stop pseudo-originalists. Control-F Around and Find Out!open.substack.com

Supreme Court Historical Fact-Check #5: The Nonsense Appointments Clause Claim with No Evidence (Plus anti-birthright nonsense) I explain Roberts’s & Wurman’s digital cherrypicking of sentences out of context: Control-F Around and Find Out open.substack.com/pub/jedshuge...

Daily Supreme Court Historical Fact-Check #5: The Nonsense Appointments Clause Claim with No EvidenceNeither Roberts nor unitary theorists could cite one Founding-era source who agreed with their conclusion, but zero evidence won't stop pseudo-originalists. Control-F Around and Find Out!open.substack.com