Alexander Winn
@alexanderwinn.bsky.social
This page is personal. The views expressed are my own.
The text of the speech and debate clause says in the Houses. Which is parallel to the language of the Bill of Rights of 1689. Note the phrase shall not be questioned. Also note re different systems the 8th Amendment is a carbon copy of the Bill of Rights 1689.
November 24, 2025 at 11:49 PM
The text of the speech and debate clause says in the Houses. Which is parallel to the language of the Bill of Rights of 1689. Note the phrase shall not be questioned. Also note re different systems the 8th Amendment is a carbon copy of the Bill of Rights 1689.
Brandeis was considerably less ethical than the modern Justices pilloried by Mr SpinningHugo. See e.g. him colluding with an officer of the defendant in relation to his dissent in a seminal case, St Louis & O’Fallon Railway Co v US, where a railing challenged an ICC order.
November 23, 2025 at 12:16 AM
Brandeis was considerably less ethical than the modern Justices pilloried by Mr SpinningHugo. See e.g. him colluding with an officer of the defendant in relation to his dissent in a seminal case, St Louis & O’Fallon Railway Co v US, where a railing challenged an ICC order.
The wording of significant to you raises some questions to me, but in principle I have no objection to questions that ask what policies are significant and how would you implement them, that’s basically just a question of will you do your job and/or not act as a saboteur or a slouch.
November 18, 2025 at 2:11 AM
The wording of significant to you raises some questions to me, but in principle I have no objection to questions that ask what policies are significant and how would you implement them, that’s basically just a question of will you do your job and/or not act as a saboteur or a slouch.
Posting without further comment.
November 15, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Posting without further comment.
Goodness the media are hopeless. It took me half an hour to actually find what the underlying crimes were for this guy. In light of reading this, he should not have been pardoned for the 922(g)(1) offences, but no problem with the pardon for the SBR.
November 15, 2025 at 8:19 PM
Goodness the media are hopeless. It took me half an hour to actually find what the underlying crimes were for this guy. In light of reading this, he should not have been pardoned for the 922(g)(1) offences, but no problem with the pardon for the SBR.
This for example isn't sufficiently clear to stop what I'm describing in terms of the practical hollowing out of the standard. It has to say nothing alters the standards and tests hitherto used to assess claims of this sort, or something along those lines.
November 14, 2025 at 12:03 PM
This for example isn't sufficiently clear to stop what I'm describing in terms of the practical hollowing out of the standard. It has to say nothing alters the standards and tests hitherto used to assess claims of this sort, or something along those lines.
Sorry if I'm throwing a bunch of cases at you, but essentially the HC in GLJ endorsed the below (which is correct from Moubarak) but in actuality hollowed it out, as Leeming JA pointed out in CM v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Armidale.
November 14, 2025 at 11:55 AM
Sorry if I'm throwing a bunch of cases at you, but essentially the HC in GLJ endorsed the below (which is correct from Moubarak) but in actuality hollowed it out, as Leeming JA pointed out in CM v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Armidale.
I couldn't have scripted this better, just minutes after my reply. *Chefs Kiss*. Absolute cinema, 10/10 no notes.
November 13, 2025 at 9:14 PM
I couldn't have scripted this better, just minutes after my reply. *Chefs Kiss*. Absolute cinema, 10/10 no notes.
Compare the pair. Yep little evidence of hostility here, pretty normal stuff to cite the religious invocation of slavery and the Holocaust at a hearing about whether someone has to bake a cake. Extremely normal stuff here.
November 11, 2025 at 2:14 AM
Compare the pair. Yep little evidence of hostility here, pretty normal stuff to cite the religious invocation of slavery and the Holocaust at a hearing about whether someone has to bake a cake. Extremely normal stuff here.
Unrelated, but it looks like Jackson has been reading some Jodi Kantor.
November 6, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Unrelated, but it looks like Jackson has been reading some Jodi Kantor.
She still doesn't seem to understand the problem of the binary framing. If the govt is sending agents around to collect taxes from people who don't legally owe it taxes, that's a massive civil rights issue. That's taking people's property with no legal basis. Yet it's framed as not a rights issue.
November 6, 2025 at 8:12 PM
She still doesn't seem to understand the problem of the binary framing. If the govt is sending agents around to collect taxes from people who don't legally owe it taxes, that's a massive civil rights issue. That's taking people's property with no legal basis. Yet it's framed as not a rights issue.
I did. She apparently still cannot figure out what's wrong with this paragraph. The Court didn't say actions that were too significant in abstract couldn't be legal. The Court didn't say the CDC didn't have power to keep people safe, they did, but their scope wasn't boundless. etc. etc.
November 6, 2025 at 8:02 PM
I did. She apparently still cannot figure out what's wrong with this paragraph. The Court didn't say actions that were too significant in abstract couldn't be legal. The Court didn't say the CDC didn't have power to keep people safe, they did, but their scope wasn't boundless. etc. etc.
Just complete misrepresentations here, but that's not even the most egregious thing. Perhaps it's the fact there's no reference to FDA v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp despite that involving a MQD issue.
November 6, 2025 at 12:06 PM
Just complete misrepresentations here, but that's not even the most egregious thing. Perhaps it's the fact there's no reference to FDA v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp despite that involving a MQD issue.
It is truly impressive that even when I agree with your bottom line take that Trump should lose you manage to pump the article full of just awful talking points. This is bad. Apparently ultra vires extraction of tax isn't a civil rights issue because muh shareholders or some crap.
November 6, 2025 at 12:03 PM
It is truly impressive that even when I agree with your bottom line take that Trump should lose you manage to pump the article full of just awful talking points. This is bad. Apparently ultra vires extraction of tax isn't a civil rights issue because muh shareholders or some crap.
Someone please tell law professors that lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their paying clients including to act in their best interests, and not the bluesky peanut gallery. The gent from Georgia hasn't obviously even done a legal ethics course at his own University.
November 5, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Someone please tell law professors that lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their paying clients including to act in their best interests, and not the bluesky peanut gallery. The gent from Georgia hasn't obviously even done a legal ethics course at his own University.
As a textual matter, this provision is entirely consistent with the sketch above. All examples of relief referenced in the provision directly relate to the job, or the unfair practices themselves. There's not a hint of a reference to more attenuated consequential damages.
November 1, 2025 at 11:02 AM
As a textual matter, this provision is entirely consistent with the sketch above. All examples of relief referenced in the provision directly relate to the job, or the unfair practices themselves. There's not a hint of a reference to more attenuated consequential damages.
The British common law position which was encapsulated in a decision called Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd, the impact of which is described in this paper - law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/asset.... I suspect American authority on point at the time similarly confined damages for breach of employment contract.
November 1, 2025 at 10:48 AM
The British common law position which was encapsulated in a decision called Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd, the impact of which is described in this paper - law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/asset.... I suspect American authority on point at the time similarly confined damages for breach of employment contract.
The Court suggests that backpay is an equitable remedy. I don't think that's right. Backpay, just meaning damages in the form of wages and value of other benefits was as I understand it, the standard remedy at law for wrongful termination of employment.
November 1, 2025 at 10:45 AM
The Court suggests that backpay is an equitable remedy. I don't think that's right. Backpay, just meaning damages in the form of wages and value of other benefits was as I understand it, the standard remedy at law for wrongful termination of employment.
First, you straw man the argument. The argument is that actually jurors who say they cannot be impartial in a trial involving ICE should be removed from the pool for that trial, per the article you shared. That is not a weird standard. That is the standard used across different fact situations.
October 23, 2025 at 11:43 PM
First, you straw man the argument. The argument is that actually jurors who say they cannot be impartial in a trial involving ICE should be removed from the pool for that trial, per the article you shared. That is not a weird standard. That is the standard used across different fact situations.
I can readily believe that. London seems very overcrowded too. Brussels vs my home city in terms of density.
October 12, 2025 at 12:00 PM
I can readily believe that. London seems very overcrowded too. Brussels vs my home city in terms of density.
Someone please inform him that it is legal to block people without having to find a pretext.
October 12, 2025 at 1:46 AM
Someone please inform him that it is legal to block people without having to find a pretext.
Easy religious liberty. Democratically appointed judges sided with the govt in COVID cases 100% of the time vs Republican judges 33% and Trump Republican appointees 18%. 100% of the time. Let that one sink in. In non COVID cases, 90% of the time. That's a joke, and this is over a large # of cases.
October 12, 2025 at 1:11 AM
Easy religious liberty. Democratically appointed judges sided with the govt in COVID cases 100% of the time vs Republican judges 33% and Trump Republican appointees 18%. 100% of the time. Let that one sink in. In non COVID cases, 90% of the time. That's a joke, and this is over a large # of cases.
I mean the unintentional takeaway from the NYT seems to be R appointees to the bench have diversity of thought and independence of thought whereas D appointees literally all believe the same thing and don't have such independence of mind (lol -and supportable by other data in other areas).
October 11, 2025 at 8:30 PM
I mean the unintentional takeaway from the NYT seems to be R appointees to the bench have diversity of thought and independence of thought whereas D appointees literally all believe the same thing and don't have such independence of mind (lol -and supportable by other data in other areas).