The Court is ideological but isn't corrupt. The "corruption" narrative is mostly a product of liberal frustration that the Court is going to remain 6-3 for awhile, and the fact the public doesn't really care enough to endorse radical changes such as court packing.

Yes, random House candidate in Michigan I've never heard of and have no relationship with, I greatly appreciate your EOY fundraising text. I'll definitely contribute today, because I appreciate that democracy is on the line. Happy New Year to you too.

[the song imagine is pretty trash]

1. In 2019, CBO reported that by 2029 spending on seniors would be half the budget 2. Since then congress the bipartisan Social Security Fairness Act and the GOP-only OBBBA both boosted benefits for the elderly 3. OBBBA cut spending on the non-elderly open.substack.com/pub/debtdispat…

I see more pictures of gay people kissing on Twitter posted by libs of tiktok than I do from my gay friends.

~this was dumb they did it federally too~

Recruiters are wild. I’m a licensed attorney in Philadelphia practicing commercial real estate law. Not sure what about my background lends to this post…

He really should take the next one live on camera. Would be eyeopening.

Here's a dangerous effort to carve out a loophole in presidential war powers big enough to drive a tank through. If such an authority existed, the president could invade anywhere, anytime, without involving Congress—just by claiming, without proof, that an attack is "imminent."

I commanded Marines in Latin America – they deserve a commander in chief operating lawfully and strategically. The president has no authority to strike Venezuela, no strategy for a democratic transition, and no credibility that he won't just pardon the criminal Maduro like he did

This argument means that any time a president wants to invade a country "legally," he just has to get his DOJ to indict the country's leader. It makes Congress' power to declare war totally meaningless.

None of this justifies how the president invaded another country without congressional authority. Republicans in Congress are further diminishing any authority that the legislative branch of government has.

We can’t arrest Canadians living in Canada who have open arrest warrants in the U.S. We rely on extradition treaties so that Canada might arrest the guy and send them here. Because we don’t have jurisdiction to arrest Canadians in Canada.

Harvard Law School isn't sending us its best people.

Congress wouldn't have authorized it, and therefor, we couldn't ask congress for authorization.

I’m sorry what the fuck

This is…also not the play.

People are conflating 2 issues: int'l vs. domestic law. Whether Trump has the authority to invade another country w/o congressional approval for purposes of executing a domestic arrest warrant is really a Q about domestic US law. Int'l law is pretty irrelevant in this debate.

This is probably not right. Failing to “mirandize” a criminal defendant after an arrest just means any statements made by the defendant in a custodial interrogation just…don’t come in at trial. Charges don’t get dismissed if you don’t read someone Miranda earnings.