Going to be a bit ironic if what saves us from the Federalist Society is federalism.

Q: Politico reported on a group chat of young Republicans. Does this just reflect some bad apples?

HOCHUL: Some bad apples? These are the future of the GOP. This is so vile it's hard to find the words to put into context ... there's gotta be consequences ... this bullshit has to stop.

A fairly good response . . . but a much more mild mannered critique than, ahem, I would have offered . . .

Platforming something like this gives it legitimacy that it doesn't deserve, in my view. But I'll hold off on making a final judgment I guess until I see the whole thing. And I think that, given the existence of such a symposium, it's very good of you to participate Beau. So no judgment there!

Oof, ok. I think I disagree. Generally academic journals don't publish bad scholarship just to rip it apart. I'm not sure why legal scholarship should be any different in this regard from other fields. And frankly I'm not sure how this even is scholarship. Like Dan said, it's a screed.

This is maybe a silly question, but who greenlit this? Students? Faculty? @beaubaumann.bsky.social do you know? I'm struggling to understand how anyone who takes legal scholarship seriously would publish something so unsupported by anything resembling actual research/intellectual work.

I know some will say this is just the reality of the world. Nothing matters anymore. Law is for suckers, etc. But this is nuts--it's DOGE getting an academic whitewash.

Yes, but a king only for deregulation 🤦‍♀️
Is it a radical view nowadays that everyone should have to play by the same rules? Masks are off, I guess. That's the only silver lining here...

Um, no. *The statute* provides the agency the reasons on which they can/shall regulate or not. If the law doesn't specify that the President should get to make that choice, that should end the matter. This argument is Trump v. U.S. for admin law.

Burnham's approach would just blatantly violate the APA and numerous env. laws. I mean what even is this: "The agency implementing the repeal is subject to the APA, of course, but its rationale for effectuating the repeal is that the President directed the repeal—a perfectly rational reason"

This cannot be real. Set aside the insanity of arguing that the government should have less of a burden when deciding not to regulate (when really the government should be regulating in order to protect the public's interest because of a market failure) ...

I mean it's one thing to want more expertise housed in Congress, I can see myself in favor of that (details would matter). But the idea that Congress is somehow going to include a specific cost-benefit analysis in legislation as a way of limiting agency discretion strikes me as absolutely bonkers.

What on earth is this madness: "In looking to best practices to avoid delegation, be precise, speak clearly, fill up the details,
and make the cost-benefit analysis by assigning numeric values, dates, and trade-offs."
Congressional representatives are...going to be doing CBA?! On what, exactly 😱

Exactly this. And if you care about academic freedom, you should really subscribe to this newsletter.
open.substack.com/pub/academic...

Agree with Nick that what has happened to the Washington Post in recent months is extremely concerning. His thread on the bad editorial about the shutdown is worth reading in full.

So now we have court filings in which cases are allegedly hallucinated by *check notes* LEXIS NEXIS, THE EFFING LARGEST, MOST USED LEGAL DATABASE BY LAWYERS, COURTS, AND LEGAL SCHOLARS.
Seems bad.

Father figure on repeat for the foreseable future. Wish it didn't resonate for me so much at this moment in my life but oh boy, does it ever.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiS2...

Read it during the first Trump Presidency as I was struggling to make sense of people close to me joining his administration. It is eerily relevant to our current moment.

G’mar Chatima Tovah.

Wishing a meaningful fast to all during Yom Kippur.

May this time of reflection be filled with peace, hope, and prayer.

אָבִֽינוּ מַלְכֵּֽנוּ בַּטֵּל מֵעָלֵֽינוּ כָּל גְּזֵרוֹת קָשׁוֹת
אָבִֽינוּ מַלְכֵּֽנוּ בַּטֵּל מַחְשְׁ֒בוֹת שׂוֹנְ֒אֵֽינוּ
אָבִֽינוּ מַלְכֵּֽנוּ הָפֵר עֲצַת אוֹיְ֒בֵֽינוּ
אָבִֽינוּ מַלְכֵּֽנוּ כַּלֵּה כָּל צַר וּמַשְׂטִין מֵעָלֵֽינוּ
אָבִֽינוּ מַלְכֵּֽנוּ כַּלֵּה דֶּֽבֶר וְחֶֽרֶב וְרָעָב וּשְׁ֒בִי וּמַשְׁחִית וְעָוֹן וּשְׁ֒מַד מִבְּ֒נֵי בְרִיתֶֽךָ

Delighted to be @umichlaw.bsky.social today to present my paper with Amy Wildermuth, Harmonizing Delegation and Deference After Loper Bright, at the public law workshop. Many thanks to @jdmortenson.bsky.social & @profrrothschild.bsky.social for inviting me.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Me as a student: I wrote that prof 2 weeks ago and still haven’t heard back! Academia is so unprofessional.

Me as a professor: <opens inbox to 462 unread new messages>

🔥

Very moving tribute

In the midst of very dark days for those of who work on climate issues, I was so glad to have the opportunity to write these comments with the Center for Progressive Reform. Onwards, my friends.