Neil Stenhouse
@nstenhouse.bsky.social
Data, research, progressive politics, climate, energy, scicomm. Formerly @EmpowerProjUS @GQRResearch @UWMadison @Mason4C. From 🇳🇿 (Palmy)
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Special Birthday Boy Executive Theory
December 9, 2025 at 11:31 AM
Special Birthday Boy Executive Theory
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Every legal story now is either
Ancient Circuit Judge Delivers Crystal Clear 100 Page Rebuke To Trumpist Overreach
or
In Unsigned Shadow Docket Decision, 6-3 Majority Declares Trump Can Hunt People For Sport
Ancient Circuit Judge Delivers Crystal Clear 100 Page Rebuke To Trumpist Overreach
or
In Unsigned Shadow Docket Decision, 6-3 Majority Declares Trump Can Hunt People For Sport
October 3, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Every legal story now is either
Ancient Circuit Judge Delivers Crystal Clear 100 Page Rebuke To Trumpist Overreach
or
In Unsigned Shadow Docket Decision, 6-3 Majority Declares Trump Can Hunt People For Sport
Ancient Circuit Judge Delivers Crystal Clear 100 Page Rebuke To Trumpist Overreach
or
In Unsigned Shadow Docket Decision, 6-3 Majority Declares Trump Can Hunt People For Sport
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
god this is a satisfying sentence
December 8, 2025 at 6:32 PM
god this is a satisfying sentence
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Cucking Dr. Pepper by making him watch me drink Mr. Pibb
December 8, 2025 at 5:09 PM
Cucking Dr. Pepper by making him watch me drink Mr. Pibb
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Good news, everyone! Today is my first day as a climate and weather editor for CNN (For realsies, instead of a temp position. I'm bona-fide now) and I got to publish my first CNN byline on the same day.
www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/c...
www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/c...
How should we deal with space junk? Space recycling, of course | CNN
Junk is accumulating in space at a fantastic pace, with millions of pieces orbiting the Earth, and humans need to figure out a way to deal with it.
www.cnn.com
December 8, 2025 at 3:38 PM
Good news, everyone! Today is my first day as a climate and weather editor for CNN (For realsies, instead of a temp position. I'm bona-fide now) and I got to publish my first CNN byline on the same day.
www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/c...
www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/c...
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
One cool thing about Originalism is that all the very standard ways historians have of trying to understand the meaning of old texts are ignored in favour of communing with the spirit of the author (who strangely always agrees with today’s right wing).
During ratification of the 14th Amendment, senators discussed whether the Citizenship Clause would apply to the children of immigrants and resoundingly concluded that it did. The text and history all point in one direction and the counter-arguments are patently fraudulent. I am going to lose my mind
The evidence is the text. All you have to do is read the Constitution.
December 8, 2025 at 4:32 PM
One cool thing about Originalism is that all the very standard ways historians have of trying to understand the meaning of old texts are ignored in favour of communing with the spirit of the author (who strangely always agrees with today’s right wing).
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
The only way to assure individual liberty is to hand unprecedented governmental power to the guy engaged in blatant democratic backsliding
Kavanaugh: Broad delegations to unaccountable agencies are dangerous for individual liberty! We have used the major questions doctrine to prevent agencies from overreaching.
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
December 8, 2025 at 4:12 PM
The only way to assure individual liberty is to hand unprecedented governmental power to the guy engaged in blatant democratic backsliding
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
the Trump admin's argument in Trump v. Slaughter is twofold--that laws saying presidents can only fire people for good cause are unconstitutional, *and that any court orders that block Trump from firing people are unconstitutional--and I wish there was some more discussion today of that second part
December 8, 2025 at 4:39 PM
the Trump admin's argument in Trump v. Slaughter is twofold--that laws saying presidents can only fire people for good cause are unconstitutional, *and that any court orders that block Trump from firing people are unconstitutional--and I wish there was some more discussion today of that second part
True public accountability is when the Law Wizards make up new laws in the Originalism Cave and then choose what powers are given to the Golden President
The "major questions doctrine" is just something Supreme Court Justices made up to give themselves more power whenever they feel like it. No basis in law granting the Supreme Court majority additional ability to undo an act of Congress they disagree with because Justices say this one's a big deal.
December 8, 2025 at 4:41 PM
True public accountability is when the Law Wizards make up new laws in the Originalism Cave and then choose what powers are given to the Golden President
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
The "major questions doctrine" is just something Supreme Court Justices made up to give themselves more power whenever they feel like it. No basis in law granting the Supreme Court majority additional ability to undo an act of Congress they disagree with because Justices say this one's a big deal.
December 8, 2025 at 4:38 PM
The "major questions doctrine" is just something Supreme Court Justices made up to give themselves more power whenever they feel like it. No basis in law granting the Supreme Court majority additional ability to undo an act of Congress they disagree with because Justices say this one's a big deal.
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
"Individual liberty" is when conservatives decide everything. Their concept of liberty is just domination, not freedom to do what they want, but freedom to force everyone else to do what they want. bsky.app/profile/donm...
The only way to assure individual liberty is to hand unprecedented governmental power to the guy engaged in blatant democratic backsliding
Kavanaugh: Broad delegations to unaccountable agencies are dangerous for individual liberty! We have used the major questions doctrine to prevent agencies from overreaching.
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
December 8, 2025 at 4:30 PM
"Individual liberty" is when conservatives decide everything. Their concept of liberty is just domination, not freedom to do what they want, but freedom to force everyone else to do what they want. bsky.app/profile/donm...
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
hey a fun thing is that if congress is delegating authority to an independent agency then by definition that agency is not "unaccountable." it is still accountable to congress. and it is interesting (read: extremely frustrating) to me that these people just write congress out of existence here.
Kavanaugh: Broad delegations to unaccountable agencies are dangerous for individual liberty! We have used the major questions doctrine to prevent agencies from overreaching.
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
December 8, 2025 at 4:16 PM
hey a fun thing is that if congress is delegating authority to an independent agency then by definition that agency is not "unaccountable." it is still accountable to congress. and it is interesting (read: extremely frustrating) to me that these people just write congress out of existence here.
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
This is a muppet, not a real animal, and you cannot convince me otherwise
The Tasselled Wobbegong is a master of disguise that can eat a fish almost as big as itself in one gulp. It's classified as a shark, but when it lays on the sea floor it looks like a harmless rug if you manage to see it. But with powerful jaws and sharp teeth they are no fish to mess with.
December 8, 2025 at 4:16 PM
This is a muppet, not a real animal, and you cannot convince me otherwise
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
not sure you can talk coherently about maintaining the rule of law without promising serious court reform
Holy shit this back and forth between Kagan/Alito/Jackson/&the SG.
Kagan: Doesn't your logic mean a whole raft of other agencies must be invalidated?
SG: Yes, but that's not being litigated right now
Kagan: So what?
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe don't apply our logic elsewhere?"
Kagan: Doesn't your logic mean a whole raft of other agencies must be invalidated?
SG: Yes, but that's not being litigated right now
Kagan: So what?
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe don't apply our logic elsewhere?"
December 8, 2025 at 4:16 PM
not sure you can talk coherently about maintaining the rule of law without promising serious court reform
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
I fear it is impossible to overstate this, but I wonder if what we are listening to is a third reconstruction (counter-construction?) of our entire federal government.
Either we go full autocracy, destroy federal government state capacity altogether, or make the court a super-legislature.
Either we go full autocracy, destroy federal government state capacity altogether, or make the court a super-legislature.
So yeah sauer just said that we have two choices:
1 all agencies are au fond unconstitutional because they excercise legislative and judicial functions or
2 the prez must have unrestrained control over every aspect of them because their powers are (in a formal legal sense) executive
1 all agencies are au fond unconstitutional because they excercise legislative and judicial functions or
2 the prez must have unrestrained control over every aspect of them because their powers are (in a formal legal sense) executive
December 8, 2025 at 4:13 PM
I fear it is impossible to overstate this, but I wonder if what we are listening to is a third reconstruction (counter-construction?) of our entire federal government.
Either we go full autocracy, destroy federal government state capacity altogether, or make the court a super-legislature.
Either we go full autocracy, destroy federal government state capacity altogether, or make the court a super-legislature.
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Oprah Pursues Dr. Phil On Ship Through Arctic https://theonion.com/oprah-pursues-dr-phil-on-ship-through-arctic/
December 8, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Oprah Pursues Dr. Phil On Ship Through Arctic https://theonion.com/oprah-pursues-dr-phil-on-ship-through-arctic/
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Gorsuch leaning in to "actually, all these agencies are unconstitutional in their entirety"
Gorsuch is very much not on board with "sever this and let the executive control it"
Folks, we might be walking out of this without any executive agencies at all
Gorsuch is very much not on board with "sever this and let the executive control it"
Folks, we might be walking out of this without any executive agencies at all
December 8, 2025 at 3:46 PM
Gorsuch leaning in to "actually, all these agencies are unconstitutional in their entirety"
Gorsuch is very much not on board with "sever this and let the executive control it"
Folks, we might be walking out of this without any executive agencies at all
Gorsuch is very much not on board with "sever this and let the executive control it"
Folks, we might be walking out of this without any executive agencies at all
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
The practical effect of overturning Humphrey’s will be that Republican presidents can stack the formerly independent agencies with their copartisans and SCOTUS will be cool with everything they do but when a Dem POTUS does the same Roberts et al will declare all those agencies’ actions unlawful.
In a memo John Roberts wrote just 4 yrs out of law school, he said the “time may be ripe to reconsider the existence” of independent agencies & bring them back into the executive branch. Now he’s poised to end what he has long called “a constitutional anomaly.”
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/u...
Conservative Project at Supreme Court Meets Trump’s Push to Oust Officials
www.nytimes.com
December 8, 2025 at 12:07 AM
The practical effect of overturning Humphrey’s will be that Republican presidents can stack the formerly independent agencies with their copartisans and SCOTUS will be cool with everything they do but when a Dem POTUS does the same Roberts et al will declare all those agencies’ actions unlawful.
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Kavanaugh pretty much just said this out loud
The practical effect of overturning Humphrey’s will be that Republican presidents can stack the formerly independent agencies with their copartisans and SCOTUS will be cool with everything they do but when a Dem POTUS does the same Roberts et al will declare all those agencies’ actions unlawful.
In a memo John Roberts wrote just 4 yrs out of law school, he said the “time may be ripe to reconsider the existence” of independent agencies & bring them back into the executive branch. Now he’s poised to end what he has long called “a constitutional anomaly.”
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/u...
December 8, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Kavanaugh pretty much just said this out loud
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe points don't count when the other team scores them?"
Holy shit this back and forth between Kagan/Alito/Jackson/&the SG.
Kagan: Doesn't your logic mean a whole raft of other agencies must be invalidated?
SG: Yes, but that's not being litigated right now
Kagan: So what?
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe don't apply our logic elsewhere?"
Kagan: Doesn't your logic mean a whole raft of other agencies must be invalidated?
SG: Yes, but that's not being litigated right now
Kagan: So what?
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe don't apply our logic elsewhere?"
December 8, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe points don't count when the other team scores them?"
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Holy shit this back and forth between Kagan/Alito/Jackson/&the SG.
Kagan: Doesn't your logic mean a whole raft of other agencies must be invalidated?
SG: Yes, but that's not being litigated right now
Kagan: So what?
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe don't apply our logic elsewhere?"
Kagan: Doesn't your logic mean a whole raft of other agencies must be invalidated?
SG: Yes, but that's not being litigated right now
Kagan: So what?
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe don't apply our logic elsewhere?"
December 8, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Holy shit this back and forth between Kagan/Alito/Jackson/&the SG.
Kagan: Doesn't your logic mean a whole raft of other agencies must be invalidated?
SG: Yes, but that's not being litigated right now
Kagan: So what?
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe don't apply our logic elsewhere?"
Kagan: Doesn't your logic mean a whole raft of other agencies must be invalidated?
SG: Yes, but that's not being litigated right now
Kagan: So what?
Alito: What if we just want to say "but maybe don't apply our logic elsewhere?"
Reposted by Neil Stenhouse
Supreme Court oral argument this morning, in sum
Sotomayor: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (derogatory)
Gorsuch: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (complimentary)
Sotomayor: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (derogatory)
Gorsuch: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (complimentary)
December 8, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Supreme Court oral argument this morning, in sum
Sotomayor: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (derogatory)
Gorsuch: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (complimentary)
Sotomayor: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (derogatory)
Gorsuch: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (complimentary)