Julian Davis Mortenson
@jdmortenson
Early American legal and political history. Presidential power. Probably kidding.
admin / appropriations / local govt / education / etc law peeps: What should I read on the Trump administration's claims that it has statutory discretion to do this--either under particular statutes or as a general principle of grantmaking?
this thread is simultaneously rejuvenating in my appreciation for the happy chitter chatter a place like Bluesky can bring, and also a renewed exhibit in my longstanding litigation position that the concept of ratioed is broken ab initio
my god the gall "a result in search of the rationale" is perhaps the most projection-explicit argument i have ever seen 4/
a single invocation of the johnson impeachment vote as DEFENSE for the unitary executive precludes you from serious separation-of-powers and/or historical discourse ***forever*** yes i will follow through on this anathema 3/julianpenance
how does this sentence and cite appear in the U.S. reports 1/julianpenance
forget dunks or whatever the substance of this rant is so spectacularly alien [ISWYDT] to the not-particularly-political air where I grew up in the not-remotely-woke central new york of the early 1980s, it’s just like . . . buddy are you sure this is the right country for you?
your periodic reminder that “police power” references have nothing to do with law enforcement in the modern sense
good news guys Erling just read KBJ’s birthright concurrence
I somehow always forget that we’ve been having the “…like throwing away your umbrella because you aren’t getting wet” argument since at least 1992 (Scalia in Freeman v. Pitts)
“At least traditionally, [interpretation] always required interpreters to consider the full range of available tools—from text, structure, intent, and common sense to institutional context, practical effects, and comparisons to other laws, as well as any [on-point] political or judicial precedents.“
“Considering the four exceptions as a permanently frozen or closed set as of…1868—such that there can be no subsequent exceptions recognized based on new developments—is inconsistent with [our] approach to const’l interpretation in a variety of areas.” 🙏 grateful to see some 2nd Amdt common sense 🙏
bruh Asimov got this sorted 50 years ago archive.is/2026.06.26-0...
Justice Stevens’s dissent in Heller remains the final word on Second Amendment activism. We live in a strange world.
the amount of things im going to use this reaction shot for, just fair warning