Joseph McGhee
@radlegaltakes
AuDHD Gen X’er with a passion for justice and a well-grinded axe. Relentlessly dedicated to government accountability and the rule of law. I like cats. #Flagstaff #Arizona Signal: @moroserabbit.34
Well that sucks. Forest Highlands is about 5 miles south of me. :/
How could the SCOTUS “originalists” ever in good faith reject this simple, functionally-unassailable originalist premise?
All publicity is good publicity, right? (I lost—these are citing my 2020 federal court failure) Works for me.
Two confused passes and a belly laugh after the third. 👏 @shortcircuitij.bsky.social
My favorite part of the article; and confirmed by my N=1 self-sample.
Not that you’ll understand any of this, but courts typically apply the second prong before the first, and cases are dismissed without ever even determining if a right was violated:
Filed this today in the Ninth Circuit regarding my appeal challenging the qualified immunity doctrine as unconstitutional and unenforceable.
I wish to point out I made this exact argument in a federal court filing on 7/3 (including the reference to ADHD amphetamine meds, PCP, and Ambien), and that I was the first (I’m aware of) to “publish” on this particular CSA distinction as applied to § 922(g)(3). reason.com/volokh/2026/...
Because the first two aren’t de facto taxation imposed without the approval of Congress?
This was pretty cool (in which the Rule governing emergency ex parte custody orders was amended to better protect child abuse victims without unduly burdening fundamental parental rights):
What do you think happens in an isolated-source environment, where AI is exclusively analyzing: (1) your draft manuscript; (2) all the articles published by a particular law review over the last two years; and (3) the review’s selection criteria? AI isn’t what you think it is—not hardly.
Teed up and ready for the SCOTUS shadow docket, which was always my plan.
So he just implemented a policy of following Rule 11, an unequivocally mandatory provision? reason.com/volokh/2025/...
1. Basically everyone, including Trump, knows that on the video they say only that *illegal* orders can and should be disobeyed. 2. But Trump construes this as them “telling the military to disobey [his] orders.” 3. Ergo, Trump knowingly issues illegal orders to the military.