@profdanwalters
Law professor at Texas A&M University School of Law, specializing in administrative law. Views are mine alone. Dog pictured is Oliver Wendell Holmes Walters Jr. (RIP 2025) https://law.tamu.edu/faculty-staff/find-people/faculty-profiles/daniel-e.-walters
Reporting like this--establishing a direct casual line between managerial decisions and avoidable catastrophes--is so essential to tracking the concrete costs of this administration's assault on government capacity. Thanks to @propublica.org for this work.
No, it's not. But it is becoming the new normal, as I discuss here:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Expect an epidemic of PTSD from veterans in about 5 years. The rules of engagement exist in part to protect soldiers from situations that rob them of their humanity and shatter their world.
Definitely possible. Also possible that this explanation interacts with the AI explanation: most journals wait for expedite requests, but the "initial offer" journals do not want to make a move because of concerns about infiltration of AI or inundation.
I would assume if they open they're actively reviewing, but maybe that's not true. Maybe there's pressure to follow the pack and open around Feb 1 even if there's no intention to start until much later.
Same. Still haven't heard from ~80 percent of the journals I submitted to.
In the end, like her dog Cricket, she was taken out back and shot when she was no longer useful.
This really checks out. I recently did a peer review for a submission at a top journal that seemed at least partially AI generated. Couldn't be sure, but there were...oddities. That it got that far in the process means there was less bandwidth for something else.
Knew it.
So the cause of action is unlawful inaction? Good luck with that.
A unitary executive doesn't have to ask. I was told this was one of the principal benefits of UET.
Preference falsification being slowly unraveled as they think they're safe.
The Republicans are lost souls and you can literally hear it in their voice as they try to hide their own realization that their defenses of this war make absolutely no sense and will convince nobody.
I was redirected from my usual polling place to another one. Poll workers said barely anybody had showed up. By about 3pm, I was voter 32. If it could happen to me, it could happen to anybody. I'm a high-information voter and this totally caught me flat footed.
Yes, definitely not conceding premise 1.
It wasn't? I thought the point was that is ironic that ABA is a liberal organization and doesn't get recognized as such, while Fed Soc is a neutral organization that does get called ideological.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just a strategy to promote the illusion of institutional neutrality. And I don't see how you could plausibly deny that it's what's happening, both here in Will's post and also more generally.
About what?
👀
LOL.
I don't know, this seems like the kind of point you'd tout if you intentionally set up your organization to evade attribution of responsibility. Like when you ensure that the mob boss never personally does anything.
And it works. What a shambles our democracy is.
For real.
"How can you oppose war when Khamenei was evil?"
Simple. If you killed Donald Trump by nuking Washington DC, I would not mourn Trump but I'd still say you're an evil war criminal who belongs in the Hague. It's really not hard.
I just re-read W.H. Auden's "September 1, 1939" and got chills:
poets.org/poem/septemb...
Good news, if we die in a preventable mid-air collision, it'll be for the national security.
Public opinion is sometimes slow to adjust, but it responds sensibly to the information it's presented with (Page and Shapiro 1992).
IOW; in the 'smart voter vs dumb voter' debate, the 'dumb voter' side is taking Ls
Yuck. I'm no fan of juristocratic rhetoric, but I'm also not a fan of mobster rhetoric directed towards judges (or anyone). Nobody owes you loyalty.
Interaction of both. Those who attempt to impose control inevitably advance only a partial representation of what the populace wants (because we disagree so fundamentally on so many things). So they score points with their base while alienating their opposition. No surprise this doesn't help.
Hilariously, Gorsuch and Barrett have a side-battle over the major questions doctrine, with Gorsuch writing a 46-page solo concurrence saying it's a substantive canon and Barrett saying it's a mere tool of statutory interpretation. So these two can't even agree on what the "doctrine" actually means.