I will once again remind folks that a very sizable chunk of what looks like Congress not doing anything to push back against the president is in fact a consequence of the Court disabling/destroying all the ways Congress has tried to push back.
Very important piece by Cerin Lindgrensavage and @davidasuper.bsky.social. This behavior by the administration is not only illegal, it is anti-constitutional. thehill.com/opinion/cong...
Reply to @joshchafetz.bsky.social
No legislative veto. Hampered oversight. No agencies outside of presidential control. No attempt to meaningfully enforce the power of the purse statutes. This is the Court’s doing.
What kind of fascist hellscape is happing on Pennsylvania Ave at the Eastern Market Metro stop? These guys—seemingly all white, all men—have their faces covered, are carrying shields, wearing brown …
NYC currently has a shark problem
DC currently has a jets problem
there's only one solution
Anthropic is accusing other companies of--get this--unfairly copying their work. www.nytimes.com/2026/07/06/t...
1/ I know we've all moved on to Barbara etc., but one observation about Slaughter.
In his conclusion, Roberts writes: "Th[e] President is not all powerful—not by any means." He then cites three cases: Milligan, Youngstown, and the Nixon Tapes Case.
The discourse around the Supreme Court term would be much improved, I think, if people focused on the center of the Court as being very much part of the GOP coalition, rather than focusing entirely on whether it is or is not doing Trump’s bidding specifically.
well, he endangered my life, but at least it was in the cause of decreasing my air quality
Reply to @joshchafetz.bsky.social
Ah, *this* kind of fascist hellscape bsky.app/profile/john...
Reply to @joshchafetz.bsky.social
3/ What is the implication? Just that--consistent with the literature on judicial self-aggrandizement--Roberts understands whatever (minimal) constraints on the presidency there are to be those imposed by the Court alone.
This is in fact correct, which is why you’ll notice that no Senate Dems have been up in arms about McConnell’s absence.
Reply to @joshchafetz.bsky.social
4/4 Congress is figured as a branch that needs to *be constrained*, but it is not a branch that can legitimately constrain the presidency.
This is not new--as I've repeatedly argued, it is very characteristic of how this Court sees Congress--but it is worth noting.
TBH, I think Steve is giving the Court too much credit here. It's not at all clear to me that they've shown up with a fire extinguisher as opposed to, say, a bag of marshmallows and some hot dogs.
Once again, McConnell being absent from the Senate without resigning is *better for Democrats* than the alternatives.
Again, one way you know this is that Senate Democrats are not up in arms about what's going on here.
Yes, and also I hate the headline the piece has on here (which is different than the headline if you click through).
It’s a bad sign for all knowledge production. This fetishization of “science” is ultimately itself destructive of the academy and broader society.
1/2 I've posted a revised version of my paper on unitary executive theory and democratic accountability, now with a discussion of Slaughter and Cook at pp. 5-6. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Reply to @joshchafetz.bsky.social
2/ Each of those involve the *Court* imposing limits on the president in the name of the Constitution. None of them involve Congress constraining the presidency.
Indeed, Roberts approvingly cites Chadha in several places.
He's gonna hire a crony arborist; they're gonna do a shitty job; half the trees are gonna die; and he's gonna spend weeks posting about how Democrats salted the earth to kill his precious tree babies.
Man, the author of the majority opinion in Slaughter is gonna be SO MAD when he reads what the author of the majority opinion in Cook had to say about agency independence from presidential control.
Reply to @joshchafetz.bsky.social
2/ Under Alito's "updating," the more racist a party is, and therefore the more it drives away minority voters, the *less* likely a plaintiff is to be able to satisfy the Gingles preconditions, because it will be increasingly impossible to "control for partisan preferences" as distinct from race.
Really missing the artisanal feel of pre-AI email scams
If you’ve never recalled a book from yourself, are you even an academic?
If you want a policy "solution" to this non-existent "problem," maybe try making it so that no one's access to higher education depends on how fast they can run or how many three-pointers they can shoot?
Reply to @joshchafetz.bsky.social
The idea that the U.S. is launching “retaliatory strikes” for the American soldiers killed in Kuwait, when those soldiers were only killed because the U.S. launched a war of aggression in Iran is some kind of thing.