Patrick Schmidt

Its worth your time learning about an American infinitely more bad-ass than Pete fucking Hegseth.

It won't be long before juries will start hearing defenses of citizens who intervene, being "the defendant reasonably doubted the legality of the abduction". And the burden will shift to the prosecution to show that it was clear.

Nothing is completely secure, but a federal judgeship is a good bet.

It was clear from the beginning that ICE staffing up was going to be a full employment program for racists, barroom bullies and wife beaters

Traitors, frauds...and ambitious. They know what rewards exist for the performatively loyal.

The specific provision is section 2 of the Calling Forth Act of 1792:

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...

For more background on the judicial review provision, and on how President Washington expressly relied upon it in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, see:

www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/427_pa9s...

A passage from the Debates at the Constitutional Convention quoted by Judge Karin Immergut in her decision blocking Trump's deployment of national guard units in Portland, OR.

Going without a mask is bold. We need anyone involved with the regime to receive condemnation, to their faces, from neighbors, friends, and family.

What's the big deal. Charlie Kirk never wanted to associate with furries anyway.

The slang that gets me today is the word "aesthetic", as in, "that's so aesthetic". Everything has an aesthetic, and some things may have an appealing aesthetic. Now the word has drifted to replace the word "beauty" itself.

And the theme emanating from my seminar, Constitutionalism, last semester, is that this lesson isn't unique to this time and place, but something that should alter how more people think about constitutions.

My reflection while walking today: The bottom line of the American experience is that the Constitution and Rule of Law have never meaningfully contained racism, because the twin forces of "legal interpretation" and impunity for violent reactionaries have always been capacious enough to protect it.

But who could have standing to sue, especially with what the Court could do to that question?

Amplify it until every potential juror knows what happened and why it cannot be tolerated.

Divider
Posted 2 hours ago from @bennetthaselton.bsky.social via @couriernewsroom.bsky.social

Cop outside a Portland ICE Facility pepper spray 2 protestors who were peacefully talking to another officer.

These are sadistic ICE-Holes! 🤬

#ProudBlue #DemVoice1 #Voices4Victory #ResistanceUnited

(And of course, this president had the portrait of Andrew Jackson, another candidate for the title, hung in the Oval Office.)

Corruption. Cruelty. Incompetence.

This president has hit a trifecta more completely than any other.

My requirements for my vote in 2028 now has two platform planks:

1) Tear down the ballroom.
2) De-monetize (refuse to recognize as legal tender) this coin.

We can settle things by flipping one of them, "call it: ass or hole?".

I love this for Brett. Who doesn't want to be remembered in history, right?

"Hey, it's your friend, Jair. If I'm in prison, you should be, too. We can hang out together."

I heard an interesting, hardball suggestion: States and cities withhold federal payroll taxes for their employees and redirect these until they cover the impounded funds. I'm trying to think through the consequences of that.

Supreme Court takes case that could allow more guns in malls and restaurants | CNN Politics The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide if states may bar people from carrying guns on private property without permission from the property owner, wading into a thorny Second Amendment dispute that...

Justice Arthur Goldberg, 1963: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Supreme Court, 2025-6: Hold my beer...

At the risk of hyperbole these really may be the most horrible people to ever live.

Turning "shutdown" into a verb, rather than "shut down"?! SMDH.

Last, the contradiction of being required to report admissions data based on race...after being told in SSFA v. Harvard that universities needed to stop asking about race. "Race-blind" was never going to work for racists, who by definition see the world racially. The charade is now over.

Plus, note two other things. One, note that there's an exception for single-sex and faith-based higher ed...but they don't mention HBCUs or Tribal colleges. That oversight is telling, and perhaps it will be benign neglect, allowing them to continue as they have done. But I wish it were clearer.

With 4k+ institutions of higher ed, this statement ignores the role of diverse institutional missions. Can an institution say, "we strive to invest our resources in students who have the most to gain, not who come fully formed?" I believe it can, and at least some should.

Then, requiring colleges to use quantitative measures imposes a reductionist notion of merit, one that uses *past success* as the basis for college admissions. Do you have to be fully formed at age 18? That's not how education works. Real mobility and education means *potential* matters.

Which is to say, evaluation will necessarily be both holistic and *contingent* year to year.