Jan Messerschmidt

I also thought that the attack was that Mamdani was the socialist, not the other way around.

Feel like there should be a tolling doctrine when the prosecutors are co-conspirators.

Still confused.

Shadow precedent

There is also a possibility that there could be more coming. This is being actively reported by top investigative journalists who were somehow able to report something new in maybe just a matter of days.

Maybe the word “robust” isn’t doing any work in his comment, but the whole theoretical basis to the unitary executive does not invite coherent exceptions. If a “robust” power allows them, where is he hanging his hat.

9/11

I often think about this in terms of legal method. Lawyers are trained to read precedent and quote cases. This can be done well, of course. But done poorly, it encourages inquiry by word search, which is bad enough, but translates especially poorly to other disciplines.

He seems preoccupied by Epstein conspiracies, so…

Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.947. Costs of previously dismissed action.

Des Moines Register should ask the new court to stay the case until Trump pays their costs for the first one.

Section 102 suggests this all seems to be a scheme to create a cryptocurrency backed by the Texas bullion depository?

I’m not familiar enough with AWA jurisprudence to say, but I read AARP to rely on it to preserve j* to decide. The principle doing more work seems to be that courts can grant preliminary relief to a putative class. That’s well-accepted by lower courts but CASA seems to run headlong into it.

Partly seems to be the all writs act, which is explicit in the initial order and implicit in the later per curiam opinion. But then the Court goes on to also state a broader principle that “courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class.” I don’t know how to square that part with CASA.

I think that’s right. Courts can get around the pre-certification problem issue by just provisionally certifying the class, as they sometimes do. But then we are just back to where we started, no? And somehow Rule 23 has granted courts a power that the Judiciary Act could not.

Also how could CASA permit pre-certification preliminary relief as to putative class members, who the Court has long said are not parties. I get that the Court recently allowed that but it seems irreconcilable with CASA.

As I commented here, I’m struggling to see how to make sense of the class action option, at least pre-certification, which seems doctrinally confused. If that’s right, we might be looking at some very fast 23(b)(2) certifications and a mess of 23(f) appeals.

How do you square Casa and A.A.R.P. with Smith v. Bayer? If putative class members are not parties for any purpose pre-certification—which I think circuits agree Smith requires—how is A.AR.P. consistent with Casa?

YouTube video by Christine4Senate Christine O'Donnell: I'm You

Can't help but be reminded of Christine O'Donnell's "I'm not a witch, I'm you" campaign ad.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGGA...

I would say the latter was more of an organic revolt against the former, but I do think the better answer is almost always: “write better.”

Isn’t that now “citation modified.”

*shudder*

Greatly appreciate this succinct and helpful explainer of the new disparate impact EO by @sbagen.bsky.social! buttondown.com/sbagen/archi...

“Your honor, the crime-fraud exception was to attorney-client…”

“Privilege?”

“We don’t use that word, your honor”

“…”

“…”