Lee Kovarsky

historians will remember this as "THE ERA OF FUCKING LOSERS"

If you could just add a dive bar this would be one-stop shopping for most weekend nights during my 20s.

That is not a cognizable habeas claim.

OMG he doesn't know what fog of war is

SPIRIT ANIMAL

100% the lawyers said "you can't do that," and 100% the deciders (including) POTUS said "who cares, there are no consequences."

And that is 100% the fault of SCOTUS and its wretched unitarism, fully immunized.

I just assumed that the people making the decision to save them weren't the same people deciding to release them - or that, if they were the same people, they realized that they were going to be facing a justiciable claim of non-combatant status

The answer to this question, BTW, is that if they continued to be detainees they could file habeas petitions - & habeas proceedings would result in a determination as to their combatant status. An adverse combatant status determination in a habeas case would wipe out the legal pretext for lethality.

I named my fists AD and HD because shit I can’t remember

gonna propose a faculty workshop where we all get drunk and people job talk their law school note

I’ll just join the chorus: this is humiliating.

FWIW I have a kid in this age range and whatever you might say about them this does not describe the modal third grader.

I mean it's just bizarre to ague that you can't work through Durbin and Schumer but that you should instead pin hopes on Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB, and Roberts.

Also, candidly, extradition or state prosecutions or civil liability don't have to work through D congressional leaders.

Show Comrades Jack and Ed some goddam respect.

Look, there are real ways to try to impose consequences on unlawful behavior - extadition, state prosecutions, civil liability. But if people want to ignore those things and vote for the tooth fairy, sure, I guess that’s thinking outside the box.

*burned

I’ve never been more certain that a person burnt ants with a magnifying glass

Yeah I don’t think “well should do this thing that requires coooeration from an institution that will under no circumstances cooperate” is helpful actually

You would have to get courts to agree on this and you would lose 9-0 at scotus. 10-0 even.

no they should have gone for 2, and i don't think it's a close call.

there is a reason why every single team, with tens of millions of dollars riding on this decision, kicks in that situation.

you don't know whether you need one possession or two because you don't know the outcome of the 2-point try. game it out.

go for it: get it, know whether you need need 1 possession or need to

kick it: don't know whether you need 1 possession or 2 b/c you have to wait until next score to find out.

It's really unbelievable to watch the Announcers both go on and on about "newfangled analytics" and question whether you go for two there when OBVIOUSLY YOU GO FOR 2 b/c that's the only way you know whether you will need 2 or 3 possessions to win.

AI will never render HVAC repair folks obsolete, ever.

I still watch the Olympic opening ceremony like once a month just for the gojira

um the halftime show of the lions pack game is fucking sick, randomly

Big Moderate is like "OMG bluesky is such an echo chamber and breeding ground for naive leftist agenda"

MEANWHILE the reality is that bluesky is like 98% people being like "maybe wannabe soldiers gassing people walking their dogs in pajamas is fucked up"

Not surprising. My general understanding is that this won’t be time-barred upon an expeditious re-filing. But that is based on my read of people I trust and not on my own knowledge of relation-back rules here.

I am a Rox fan but Durant fouled J there

Reed Sheppard ladies and gentlemen