A. Carlon
@acarlon.bsky.social
Article II or 12th Amendment?
December 17, 2025 at 11:54 PM
Article II or 12th Amendment?
Don’t follow what his being president has to do with it. Is that a formal element of the claim, or just that no judge would take it seriously if he weren’t president?
December 16, 2025 at 8:48 PM
Don’t follow what his being president has to do with it. Is that a formal element of the claim, or just that no judge would take it seriously if he weren’t president?
What? That’s not even “clear and convincing evidence”! That’s just “ordinary civil case where the jury can finish deliberation before ordering dinner.”
December 10, 2025 at 3:39 AM
What? That’s not even “clear and convincing evidence”! That’s just “ordinary civil case where the jury can finish deliberation before ordering dinner.”
But shouldn’t ”new voters” also include former nonvoters in slightly older cohorts who have started voting as they became middle-aged?
December 10, 2025 at 12:52 AM
But shouldn’t ”new voters” also include former nonvoters in slightly older cohorts who have started voting as they became middle-aged?
And for that matter, if you describe yourself as antisemitic and deny the holocaust but don’t describe Israel as colonial or describe yourself as racist, you aren’t “anti-Jewish” (!?!?)
(Prob not a lot of folks in that box but still bizarre.)
(Prob not a lot of folks in that box but still bizarre.)
December 4, 2025 at 11:07 PM
And for that matter, if you describe yourself as antisemitic and deny the holocaust but don’t describe Israel as colonial or describe yourself as racist, you aren’t “anti-Jewish” (!?!?)
(Prob not a lot of folks in that box but still bizarre.)
(Prob not a lot of folks in that box but still bizarre.)
I think under the first prong you need to both (a) identify as both antisemitic and racist and (b) express at least 1 of the 2 “extreme” beliefs. But if you describe yourself as antisemitic and racist but don’t hold either belief then…I guess they don’t believe you?
December 4, 2025 at 11:05 PM
I think under the first prong you need to both (a) identify as both antisemitic and racist and (b) express at least 1 of the 2 “extreme” beliefs. But if you describe yourself as antisemitic and racist but don’t hold either belief then…I guess they don’t believe you?
In a way, it’s almost principled (or whatever these people have in lieu thereof): anyone might be tempted to vest absolute power in a charismatic and competent leader given sufficient necessity, but they insist on vesting it in a series of ever more degraded imbeciles.
December 1, 2025 at 7:39 PM
In a way, it’s almost principled (or whatever these people have in lieu thereof): anyone might be tempted to vest absolute power in a charismatic and competent leader given sufficient necessity, but they insist on vesting it in a series of ever more degraded imbeciles.
Trump in his first term was constantly thwarted by his own appointees in achieving his desired ends (in many cases for his own good), even as he advanced the legal theory that “I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.”
December 1, 2025 at 7:39 PM
Trump in his first term was constantly thwarted by his own appointees in achieving his desired ends (in many cases for his own good), even as he advanced the legal theory that “I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.”
It’s ever been thus: “unitary executive” first emerges during the Reagan administration (a little out to lunch even before he developed Alzheimer’s) and still more so under Bush 43 (another ruler largely held under the sway of his various ministers and favorites).
December 1, 2025 at 7:33 PM
It’s ever been thus: “unitary executive” first emerges during the Reagan administration (a little out to lunch even before he developed Alzheimer’s) and still more so under Bush 43 (another ruler largely held under the sway of his various ministers and favorites).
“I won't scatter your sorrow to the heartless sea. I will always be with you. Plant your roots in me. I won't see you end as ashes. You're all diamonds.
November 27, 2025 at 1:45 AM
“I won't scatter your sorrow to the heartless sea. I will always be with you. Plant your roots in me. I won't see you end as ashes. You're all diamonds.
Proves that “get billionaires to finance local news” is a viable business model?
November 20, 2025 at 11:21 AM
Proves that “get billionaires to finance local news” is a viable business model?
By the time you work for Trump, you get the face you deserve…
November 13, 2025 at 11:28 PM
By the time you work for Trump, you get the face you deserve…
Worth noting that Judge Graber is the only member of the panel from Oregon—and from Portland at that, I believe. Prob. not most important factor, but might be extra hard to defer to the regime when the judge can personally and directly observe that its factual determinations lack merit.
October 20, 2025 at 8:14 PM
Worth noting that Judge Graber is the only member of the panel from Oregon—and from Portland at that, I believe. Prob. not most important factor, but might be extra hard to defer to the regime when the judge can personally and directly observe that its factual determinations lack merit.
They were a hit in NYC! Thank you!!
October 18, 2025 at 5:37 PM
They were a hit in NYC! Thank you!!
The problem with these surveys is that an answer like “similar threat” can (or a respondent may worry it could) come across as “I don’t think this is a big deal,” rather than “I anticipated the rule of law was in dire peril the moment they called the election.”
October 6, 2025 at 12:33 PM
The problem with these surveys is that an answer like “similar threat” can (or a respondent may worry it could) come across as “I don’t think this is a big deal,” rather than “I anticipated the rule of law was in dire peril the moment they called the election.”
The only way to stop a bad woman on a glass bridge with a giant boulder is with a good woman on a glass bridge with a giant boulder.
October 1, 2025 at 10:38 PM
The only way to stop a bad woman on a glass bridge with a giant boulder is with a good woman on a glass bridge with a giant boulder.
💯 We need to make “Kavanaugh Stop” happen.
September 27, 2025 at 4:44 PM
💯 We need to make “Kavanaugh Stop” happen.
So where is it playing? And where do we buy tickets?
September 25, 2025 at 5:58 PM
So where is it playing? And where do we buy tickets?
More like:
GOD: You know I could turn you into stone like I did with Sodom and Gomorrah right? [𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘶𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘰𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘵, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦.]
GOD: You know I could turn you into stone like I did with Sodom and Gomorrah right? [𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘶𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘰𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘵, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦.]
September 24, 2025 at 7:29 PM
More like:
GOD: You know I could turn you into stone like I did with Sodom and Gomorrah right? [𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘶𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘰𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘵, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦.]
GOD: You know I could turn you into stone like I did with Sodom and Gomorrah right? [𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘶𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘰𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘵, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦.]
I’ve oft thought it would be interesting to see who turns him down for interviews, for just this reason.
September 24, 2025 at 7:18 PM
I’ve oft thought it would be interesting to see who turns him down for interviews, for just this reason.
“Jawboning” is what Trump has been doing for months—arguably for years. You could debate whether this is a completed or merely threatened violation of the Constitution, but I don’t know whether that really matters legally (except in a damages action, which happily is off the table!)
September 19, 2025 at 1:27 PM
“Jawboning” is what Trump has been doing for months—arguably for years. You could debate whether this is a completed or merely threatened violation of the Constitution, but I don’t know whether that really matters legally (except in a damages action, which happily is off the table!)
💯 This doesn’t seem complicated—they dictated exactly what needed to happen (fire Kimmel) and the official consequences for noncompliance (revocation of licenses on public interest grounds). I feel like even pre-Vullo, ABC would have a standing to sue for a declaratory judgment.
September 19, 2025 at 1:20 PM
💯 This doesn’t seem complicated—they dictated exactly what needed to happen (fire Kimmel) and the official consequences for noncompliance (revocation of licenses on public interest grounds). I feel like even pre-Vullo, ABC would have a standing to sue for a declaratory judgment.