If u consider spectrum of problems we face, striking number are caused or abetted or barred from solution by bad past SCOTUS decisions or likely future ones. Hence, I've reluctantly concluded enlarging Court is essential. Otherwise we're stuck for decades regardless of choices of political branches.
to all candidate hopefuls...
the senate and the house of representatives aren't entry level positions.
please run for local/state positions, get elected, and get government experience FIRST.
Plainly the right move in a modern democracy...
And yet...
Nostalgia for the England that was still tugs a bit.
Also worth noting contrast between Trump's off-the-cuff declaration that goal is "unconditional surrender" & careful, even agonized, debates among WWII Allied powers about whether to demand "unconditional surrender" from Germany & Japan.
Objectives matter. Inability to see that invites tragedy.
Thx for providing these sources. Will read them w/ interest. I suspect, as you surmise, that I'll disagree. Indeed, to my mind the very idea of a "LAW of Interpretation" is suspect. But I will be wiser and more informed for having looked at what you've sent.
I'm perfectly serious, William. If, as is quite possible, I misunderstand Prof Prakash's argument or fail to consider some other body of doctrine, I'd like to be corrected or informed.
A post consisting of "The Law of Interpretation" is unhelpful in that regard.
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.
Ah, but you wouldn't have a tenured teaching gig with time to do the update. You'd have been riding circuit and sleeping two to a bed in cruddy country inns. :-)
That may be. But if you were an American lawyer in late 18th or ealry-to-mid 19th century, during which English common law is effectively still operative or at least persuasive authority, what other readily available sources were there?
Enlighten me.
Well, to be sure, he was a royalist, which certainly affects his conclusions (as for example re pardons).
But his personal predilections may be a bit beside the point, don't you think? His writing plainly influenced both founding generation & American lawyers & judges for generations thereafter.
2/2 approach makes no sense. What am I missing here?
1/2 But that doesn't seem to be what Prakash is arguing. He is saying "interpreters" of law can consider bad consequences of challenged readings. Unless interpreters were also the rule-makers (which eg Story & Blackstone were not & in case of original const no one after about 1835 could be), this
Glad he now agrees that considering consequences of an interpretive position is ok.
But his route to that conclusion is very odd. Apparently it's ok to consider results because (and only because?) founders commonly did?
How about because producing tolerable consequences is the point of law.
He thinks this is some architectural masterwork.
Begod. It's mid-size midwestern city convention center with crown molding.
The weaseling toward acquiesence is bad.
But fundamental tell on how far Dem politicians have been coopted is use of word "warfighters." That's Hegseth-speak. Phony baloney macho propaganda talk.
US doesn't have "warfighters." It has a military composed of soldiers, sailors & airmen. Words matter.
This is the man who is now in charge of US Homeland Security.
PAT RYAN: 'Does the US want to be the policeman of the Middle East getting nothing but spending precious lives & trillions.' Rng a bell?
COLBY: Defer to you
R: That was Trump. How about this - 'we simply cannot afford to get enmeshed in a Middle East war'
C: Defer to you
R: That was actually you
NEW: Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubenstein (R) who prosecuted Tina Peters says Gov Jared Polis (D) giving Peters clemency "would be a gross injustice." Rubenstein points out that separate case cited by Polis to justify clemency misses the purpose of sentencing ranges.
At Global Academy in Spartanburg, SC, only 21% of students were vaccinated against measles. Now Spartanburg is ground zero for the largest measles outbreak since 2000, when the virus was declared eliminated in the US. www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/u...
If indeed he hopes to have further political career based in Colorado, pardoning Peters would end those hopes.
And effort to compare Peters to other non-violent offenders is lame. She got long sentence because she consciously betrayed her oath & attacked democratic process. She deserves every day.
"For generations, whatever one thought of DOJ’s arguments, the baseline assumption held: the Department acted in good faith and would follow the courts’ rulings. That assumption has given way, displaced by a sustained pattern of noncompliance and escalating confrontation with the courts."
Wait, wait, wait. This is a joke, right?
Right?
Optics.
@thedailybeast.bsky.social
www.thedailybeast.com/trump-hosts-...
This one hits hard.
Inclusion of Gen Donovan's name in this official announcement is chilling. Because he is knowingly putting himself in the dock for war crimes prosecution if US govt changes hands. Which means he is either confident of Trump pardon or will be likely to do what it takes to keep Dems from power.
Cover of The Lancet:
@thelancet.com
www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
CBS taken over. Goes MAGA-lite. Ratings tank.
CNN maybe about to follow.
In print/digital space, NYT maintains standards and grows exponentially.
Doesn't market logic suggest that effective death of CBS & CNN will open a market niche for serious, honest broadcast/cable journalism?
There's some of that already in there. :-)
Volume 2, if any, will be devoted not to first millennium but second half of second term.
With a mixture of exhaustion, relief and modest exhilaration, I can announce that today I sent off to Cambridge Univ Press the completed manuscript of my new book, "PARDONS: Executive Clemency and the Rule of Law in Britain and America 1066-2026."
Due out later this year.
Jonathan Brown - jbcartoonist on Instagram.
