Jacob Schriner-Briggs

Very excited to read!

And let us not forget

A lot of Nomos and Narrative here. A lot of Violence and the Word!

Bluesky at night, poster's delight

This post brought to you by internal projection (barely resisting the urge to post about Pete Buttigieg). I am the problem here.

As a left-progressive-anti-anti-liberal with SocDem characteristics, I'm appalled

"Oh, you thought 2020 Twitter was bad? What if I told you every conceivable sect of left-liberalism found a shared online network to sharpen their ideological differences and amass internecine grievances years in advance of 2028?"

The Democratic presidential primary is going to be an absolute nightmare on this site.

I think this is both likely constitutional and also a terrible decision.

I don’t know enough to speak confidently as to the specifics, but “time, place, and manner restrictions” on speech, rather than those based on content or viewpoint, fly by more easily when subject to legal challenge. This is clearly a TPM restriction, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were upheld.

What are we doing here?

The solution to the violent and wanton suppression of free speech is not to more considerately suppress it.

Generally consistent with my impression of his 2020 campaign (which Smith ran, if I'm remembering correctly).

David I take it?

Bonus 180: "Domestic Terrorism" and NSPM-7 The Trump administration is hoping no one notices that, although federal law *defines* "domestic terrorism," it provides no special authorities against anyone whose behavior *meets* that definition.

Only one I've come across so far!

The weird snipe at @stevevladeck.bsky.social aside, Ilan misses the entire point that even the framers accepted the general idea of judicial oversight re: the president's deployment of military forces. Congress enacted a statutory regime. The president is bound by it. Courts have equitable powers.

Exactly! And I don't know whether he did high school debate, but let me just say I would be shocked if he didn't. This kind of thing is precisely what won rounds and, because "meritocracy" rewards it long past high school competition, there's great temptation to never grow out of it.

That's a *very bad* form of socialization, especially as law schools and legislatures fill up with former debaters.

Exactly! It's part of what I write there. The incentives of elite debate convert what could be a (limited) genuine inquiry into incredibly sophisticated sophistry. And the bigger problem is that debate socializes competitors toward that thinking generally while meritocracy rewards them for it.

Birthright Citizenship, Meritocracy, and the "Debate-ification" of Public Life The amorality and influence of elite high school debate is worth contemplating

It's a high school debate tactic! It's pedantic and a generally bad faith practice in that context! And would you believe that it's even worse when you're using it to aid and abet this administration's assault on U.S. cities and their residents!

marginaliablog.substack.com/p/birthright...

Ah, there's actually an important distinction between "judges" and "courts" at work here, you see? And when a "judge," rather than a "court," "certifies certain conditions," that's a "non-judicial function." Thus, the President is not subject to the equitable powers of courts. QED, really.

This is a recurring tactic: use strangely fine distinctions to create logical epicycles which then function as wedges to disrupt settled law. He did the exact same thing by arguing that technical international law principles historically explain (and thus drive) how the Citizenship Clause operates.

I’m envisioning something more like thematic framing than a primary driver of a brief, but yes this is fair.

Fair point!

Before it felt mostly like edgelord bluster from the admin’s worst blowhards. Now it feels like a more deliberate campaign to move the idea from off the wall to on. To your point though, DOJ briefing is the biggest tell, I just wouldn’t be shocked to see an Art. II arg like this appear.

The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine and the Compact for Excellence Members of the Trump administration love to say that federal funding is a privilege not a right and therefore something that can be granted or withheld based on changing administrative priorities.

The Trump Administration’s “Compact of Excellence” for Universities is... far from excellent! Indeed, it’s unconstitutional. In this post, let me count the ways.

blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-uncons...

I'm not read up enough to have fully formed opinions on these questions but I think they're the ones that need asking.

It's about whether, given already existing congressional appropriation programs, the executive can lump additional conditions onto those programs that (1) clearly implicate the recipient's 1A rights and (2) don't seem fairly derived from the conditions established by Congress. 2/3

Jumping in to say that I think the inquiry here turns on what monies the executive is threatening to revoke and the nature of the congressional programs that condition them in the first place. This doesn't seem to me an abstract case about what gov't can do if starting from scratch. 1/3

Emergency alert: Belmont Cragin stay home October 3, 2025 Icirr eyes on ice update: since approximately 11am today the rapid response network verified the presence of federal agents in Belmont Cragin, zip code 60639 at Walmart on diversey and kilPatrick, Cicero and north, Home Depot at Cicero and armitage We recommend community members to stay home, multiple arrests have been made. Ice is still in the area. To report any possible ice activity, or if you know someone who has been detained please call the family support hotline at 1-855-435-7693

ICE all across the northwest side of Chicago with hotspots in Hermosa and Belmont Cragin. There is a recent development in Logan square as well around Central Park and armitage where videos and eyewitnesses are sharing tear gas thrown at protesters trying to intervene.