Will Li
@williamlidc.bsky.social
Associate General Counsel at the National Treasury Employees Union. Skeets are my opinions and not NTEU’s.
W&_ Law, Dartmouth
he/him
profile image from Openclipart
banner from Grumpy Monkey
W&_ Law, Dartmouth
he/him
profile image from Openclipart
banner from Grumpy Monkey
In the Bleak Midwinder
November 28, 2025 at 5:19 AM
In the Bleak Midwinder
I’m so sorry. I’m thankful she was there for you.
November 28, 2025 at 3:02 AM
I’m so sorry. I’m thankful she was there for you.
NEW: Justice Ziegler has corrected her misquotation of Moore v. Harper. However, her new summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Moore does not, in my view, accurately reflect the holding. The sentence she quotes doesn't match the "exceedingly limited" paraphrase. www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/D...
November 26, 2025 at 4:04 PM
I was going to guess Upper and Lower but this is way better
November 26, 2025 at 5:06 AM
I was going to guess Upper and Lower but this is way better
I have a strong suspicion that someone used an AI summary here. The phrase “exceedingly limited” in this context appears in an article by Judge J. Michael Luttig, in The Atlantic. But the cite gets the context completely wrong. Here’s what Judge Luttig says:
Question about the dissent by (the far-right) Justice Ziegler: Does this quote actually appear in Moore v. Harper? Did Moore say that state courts' role in congressional redistricting is "exceedingly limited"? I don't think it did! vhdshf2oms2wcnsvk7sdv3so.blob.core.windows.net/thearp-media...
November 26, 2025 at 5:00 AM
I should have scrolled down before skeeting, this is where I landed too, as the likely source of an AI hallucination
November 26, 2025 at 5:00 AM
I should have scrolled down before skeeting, this is where I landed too, as the likely source of an AI hallucination
oh for sure. and if an attorney is using AI summaries, the best person to do the double checking isn't the original attorney
November 26, 2025 at 4:37 AM
oh for sure. and if an attorney is using AI summaries, the best person to do the double checking isn't the original attorney
It’s like they left a hallucination-sized hole for future jurists to drive through
November 26, 2025 at 4:30 AM
It’s like they left a hallucination-sized hole for future jurists to drive through
lol, I checked (someone check me, it’s late) and the Supreme Court has literally never used the terminology “exceedingly limited.” Like, ever.
bsky.app/profile/will...
bsky.app/profile/will...
Thanks. What’s fun is that as far as I can tell the U.S. Supreme Court has never used the term “exceedingly limited” in any circumstance, and it’s just not a term that is often used to describe a standard of review or role in reviewing decisions.
November 26, 2025 at 4:25 AM
lol, I checked (someone check me, it’s late) and the Supreme Court has literally never used the terminology “exceedingly limited.” Like, ever.
bsky.app/profile/will...
bsky.app/profile/will...
Reposted by Will Li
Thanks. What’s fun is that as far as I can tell the U.S. Supreme Court has never used the term “exceedingly limited” in any circumstance, and it’s just not a term that is often used to describe a standard of review or role in reviewing decisions.
November 26, 2025 at 4:23 AM
Thanks. What’s fun is that as far as I can tell the U.S. Supreme Court has never used the term “exceedingly limited” in any circumstance, and it’s just not a term that is often used to describe a standard of review or role in reviewing decisions.
Thanks. What’s fun is that as far as I can tell the U.S. Supreme Court has never used the term “exceedingly limited” in any circumstance, and it’s just not a term that is often used to describe a standard of review or role in reviewing decisions.
November 26, 2025 at 4:23 AM
Thanks. What’s fun is that as far as I can tell the U.S. Supreme Court has never used the term “exceedingly limited” in any circumstance, and it’s just not a term that is often used to describe a standard of review or role in reviewing decisions.
I’m not interested in that argument because I never took that position
November 26, 2025 at 4:02 AM
I’m not interested in that argument because I never took that position
If only it were so easy to say that not including health care reform in a platform no one reads led to ACA premium hikes in 2026
November 26, 2025 at 3:56 AM
If only it were so easy to say that not including health care reform in a platform no one reads led to ACA premium hikes in 2026
Okay, you know you don’t have to do a Murc’s law, right?
November 26, 2025 at 3:54 AM
Okay, you know you don’t have to do a Murc’s law, right?
Calzone-ass mandu
Sure yeah
Sure yeah
November 26, 2025 at 3:40 AM
Calzone-ass mandu
Sure yeah
Sure yeah
Feral ghouls would never
November 26, 2025 at 3:36 AM
Feral ghouls would never