Omri Marian

John Roberts: unlike Eric Hamilton, I *am* a policymaker

Five-alarm fire inside the DOJ - Lawyer Oyer

Judge: Based on the conduct of the defendants and now seeing TX National Guard called up, I am going to grant alternative TRO requested. Let me ask plaintiffs—I'd prefer not to modify original TRO, but I am troubled to hear of CA and TX NG being sent to OR, in apparent violation of my order

Immergut: I'm handling this on expedited basis, but defendants haven't provided new info.

SHE RULES FROM THE BENCH: I grant the plaintiffs motion for a second TRO based on reasons stated in previous order...

Bad!

Immergut: You're an officer of the court. Do you believe this is appropriate way to deal with my order?

Hamilton: I'm not a policy maker

Immergut: You're a lawyer

In response, Hamilton basically argues no geographic limit to federalization of CA guard...

This is not going well for Eric Hamilton, a DOJ lawyer famously the subject of this recent bar complaint:

Start 👏 sanctioning 👏 the administration's 👏 lawyers 👏

Trump talked about invading the blue states with the National Guards of the red states on the campaign trail and we tried to warn you this could happen and Very Serious People said that would never come to pass and we were just being manipulative by reminding everyone what Trump said.

I'd absolutely watch that movie.

It usually means "you better not do what I think you're about to do, you PoS".

I'd think this must be a contributing factor.

It is unbelievable that in this day and age you could type into the search bar the title of an actual article about, say, corporate tax, and the first few results that would come up would be some South Dakota law about proof of delivery.

This has been true since they changed from boolean to natural language search. They did an absolutely terrible job with their algorithms, and now it seems the same algorithms are used in their absolutely terrible, horrible, no good "AI" tools.

Lawyer Blames AI Tool for Inaccurate Citations in Court Filing | Jeff Bazinet posted on the topic | LinkedIn Is this the first case in which a major provider has been blamed for AI-hallucinated cites? New York. Trial court. AI hallucination-containing filing. (But you knew that.) Attorney subscribes to...

So now we have court filings in which cases are allegedly hallucinated by *check notes* LEXIS NEXIS, THE EFFING LARGEST, MOST USED LEGAL DATABASE BY LAWYERS, COURTS, AND LEGAL SCHOLARS.
Seems bad.

I was told not to teach a class on the intellectual histories of Zionism and Anti-Zionism next year - not because they doubted I could teach it fairly, but because it would attract too many politicians scrutinizing the syllabus.

A society where that is a valid fear is no longer fully democratic.

To be clear: the show IS available in Israel. Just this episode isn't.

'Deadliest War': John Oliver slams Netanyahu in show not available for streaming in Israel The Episode of 'Last Week Tonight' Deals With the War in Gaza and the Prime Minister, and Is Not Available to Watch in Israel. HBO, Which Broadcasts Oliver's Show, Declined to Comment

The only democracy in the Middle East, etc...

I don't know how to call it. "Fascism" or something else. I don't care. But this misses the point, which is that many folks ARE worried about expressing their opinions publicly, including through social media.

I have folks reaching out to me through social media asking me to delete the messages I got from them after our discussions, or refuse to engage with me in any way other than Signal...

I had individuals asking me if I can assure their names are not associated with the small donations they wanted to make...

I run a pro-democracy 501(c)(3) that is heavily reliant on volunteers. Multiple folks refused to, or stop volunteering because they were worried about the personal consequences they'll suffer if their association with the organization becomes known...

it's impossible to know what people *aren't* posting and why, but i assure you that "is this safe to post" is a real concern that is shaping the decisionmaking of many real people right now

(I mean, I do understand it, of course. Especially the part making it about "Jews").

This is so weird. There are so many horrendous things he actually did say that are very well documented. I don't understand the need to make up this BS.

He's building the argument for SCOTUS: Because there was a specific law, and it was repealed, it must mean deployment is not reviewable because otherwise Congress would have told us it's reviewable, as it did in that case. And the current SCOTUS will buy it.

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.

Agreed, though it seems to me most Americans avoid these places.

Yes, yes, I'm a food snob. I know. I can't help it.