this is like
the thesis statement of our times
07.03.2026 03:12
👍 2530
🔁 598
💬 2
📌 0
this is like
the thesis statement of our times
No points for guessing which of you was which? ;)
Pedestrians do have the right of way...
Second, I'm guessing there's some element of "fuck you Congress, I do what I want regardless of the Constitution." See e.g. impoundment and declaring wars. Conceding that a formal nomination/confirmation is better than an acting acknowledges the President isn't a king, which seems against policy.
First, just going through the motions of a formal nomination is a lot of burden for a nominee. You have to fill out questionnaires, complete ethics forms, etc. Some nominees who have dirty laundry may not want to even start that process and be questioned on it, even if they end up confirmed.
Now, if you were asking my personal opinion, I would say that interpretation writes the words "and in the same manner" out of the statute entirely.
How many people of any kind were recording their own long-form video content in 2007 though? ;) YouTube wasn't even created until 2005.
I know what you mean though. :) I have a similar feeling about "if you'd told me in 2011 when I was desperately job-seeking that I'd be the "yay trains" guy"
*gestures vaguely at most remaining DOJ attorneys*
I just meant I'm not sure DOJ accepts the Congressional enactment as overriding the Supremacy Clause question. I don't know if that opinion was ever withdrawn.
Cc: @coreyryung.bsky.social @dondechert.bsky.social @kenwhite.bsky.social
I should clarify, I'm not defending the OLC opinion or this new effort, but I believe it's useful to distinguish between new awful arguments and old long-standing ones that people didn't have reason to pay as much attention to.
After OLC issued that opinion, and arguably in response to it, Congress passed a statute saying federal attorneys are subject to state bar requirements, which you would think would settle the issue, but somehow doesn't.
I don't think this is really a new argument from DOJ, though; here's an OLC opinion from 1985 basically saying state bar rules could be implicitly inconsistent with federal requirements and Supremacy Clause would override them. @gowder.io
No it's not.
I remember when there used to be federal personnel cases that would go to Fed Cir....
Dan is QTing a post by a FedSoc-affiliated law prof (at UChicago Law) who is bragging? I guess? about FedSoc never filing an amicus brief as an org while the ABA filed one in the birthright citizenship case, and yet still being viewed as a partisan org:
Yeah., I agree.
See also www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/... (unpaid student interns aren't covered by criminal conflict of interest laws or standards of ethical conduct for federal employees).
*pinches bridge of nose*
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but as much as this whole story is objectionable, unpaid summer law interns are often hired under the voluntary service provision of 5 U.S.C. 3111 and generally aren't considered "employees" for Title 5 purposes.
After all this time, I honestly didn't think there could be a new angle on "you can't use appropriated funds to buy food for federal employees", but I was wrong.
Hey @amtappeals.bsky.social , is a contract with DoD still binding if the reference is to the "Department of War" which isn't a real entity by statute?
(I'm kidding. I think.)
Yes, I know it's law school publicity/propaganda, but it's no less notable that this is the branding they want to be associated with and are proud of.
Man, publishing an article like this without any acknowledgement of the kinds of things FedSoc-affiliated people actually have argued for in court and elsewhere and repeating this framing as "just interested in debate" is a capital-C Choice at this particular moment in time.
Literally a day before this piece came out, I saw Food Network's sneak peek of the chefs getting their orientation of the kitchen and thinking how cool it would be to get a behind-the-scenes peek of how Justin does his work. This is a fantastic interview that is not to be missed if you watch ToC.
Attn: @rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social
Unlike, say, domestic politics. 🙄
I was thinking it's often harder to respond to a bad brief than a good one, and a party using an LLM is, uh, unlikely to be making good logical arguments.
