Jamal Greene

Thank you for the informative thread! It still seems to me that the level/scope/nature of "human" involvement lies more on a spectrum than a binary, though of course the actions and statements of the current DOD have given us no reason to think they're at an acceptable place along that spectrum.

5 weapons that don’t need a human to pull the trigger How close are we to fully automated weaponry? Are there actual killer robots out there right now, ready to fight wars? Yes and no.

I've seen different accounts of whether ID always uses humans. This, e.g., suggests not, but I'm no expert. My broader point is that one needs to qualify what "human intervention" & "AI" & "evaluation" mean, which is why so many are calling for a new, clarifying treaty. www.pbs.org/newshour/wor...

I am not an expert on the law of armed conflict, but I am doubtful it's all that straightforward under the existing rules. I think Iron Dome fits your description, e.g., and there's a lot of ambiguity embedded in "specific human confirmation," which may itself be influenced by various forms of AI.

She and I were part of the same scene, but we didn’t share the screen.

I was in a movie with Michael Jackson.

Even putting aside the implications for the laws of war, someone who describes mass killing in this way is not well, nor is the society that empowers that person to kill.

Screenshot of excerpt from opinion that reads: "Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial court’s order. After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the State’s intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial court’s order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial court’s order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants’ motions for a stay."

With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls within that category.

1/9: In the New York redistricting case, Justice Alito's justification for why #SCOTUS even had *jurisdiction* to issue a stay is based upon a remarkably misleading portrayal of the state court proceedings.

I realize this is technical, but I wanted to write a short thread to explain the shadiness:

I wonder why the word "kakistocracy" is not more in vogue. Should have been Word of the Year.

I would also like to know more about the first question in particular.

Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad reported killed | The Jerusalem Post Ahmadinejad served as the president of Iran from 2005 until 2013.

And, apparently, its former leaders as well. www.jpost.com/middle-east/...

She would, of course, be excoriated, which isn't to say it was especially improper here. I'd guess they became acquainted during Lee's time as a SCOTUS clerk (though not for CT) & it wouldn't surprise me if his office helped set up the talk. But yeah, pretty sure the SCOTUS building has WiFi.

A reminder that we can’t trust anything that any high government official in any of these countries says.

Pakistan is in 'open war' with Afghanistan after latest strikes, defense minister says Pakistan and Afghanistan have traded attacks in a dramatic escalation of tensions between the countries.

This, about two countries that share massive borders with Iran, has flown under the radar in most US news. apnews.com/article/afgh...

I agree, and I do think the WPR is relevant here, but I think its substantive legal effect is ambiguous as a matter of statutory interpretation.

The originalist movement arose out of an emphasis on the importance of legal continuity. It has come to disregard the significance of that rule-of-law value, which makes it far less defensible and far more dangerous.

I agree that it's unambiguous based on the text, but for me, what makes it even easier is an unbroken interpretation and practice by all of government for well over a century. Even if the text's original meaning cut the other way, that would be decisive to me absent congressional action. . . .

But if the law purports to be a statement of constitutional power, and it turns out to be an accurate statement as to D but not as to E and F, it's probably more useful to speak in terms of the unconstitutionality of D directly, though one can add that Congress has affirmed its unconstitutionality.

We have no allies (not that they can help much w/ this kind of operation), no political coalition (even GWB invested in that), massively degraded US state capacity (including intel, diplomacy, & counterterrorism), and what can be charitably described as the club team running key arms of US govt. 7/

Opinion | Trump’s Strikes on Iran Were Unlawful. Here’s Why That Matters.

The strikes on Iran are blatantly illegal. I explained in June why the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were unlawful under US and international law. Everything I wrote then is true today, but this is a far larger assault with far graver consequences.

www.nytimes.com/2025/06/23/o...

Can’t say. Too many hypothetical variables.

A bit more on this disturbing development in the Spectator's reporting. www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2026/02...

Some of the proposals have a trigger that would expand the Court if term limits are struck down. I would think that slightly ups the odds they would uphold, but only slightly.

If this is accurate, there’s (as far as I can tell) not a single thing the president has done in the last 13 months that’s as popular among Americans as expanding the Supreme Court is right now, with virtually no messaging.

What this reflects is that, whatever else we might think about it, the kind of detention/deportation surge the administration is engaged in also requires an investment in the resources necessary to comply with the law. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, you shouldn't be able to do the surge.

O.J. Simpson

@jackmack12.bsky.social

All of this.

Free Expression in the Shadow State

Should we establish new institutions to promote and defend free speech values--institutions that might be able to play the role that courts aren't or can't? This one's from @jamalgreene.bsky.social. knightcolumbia.org/blog/free-ex...

"in principle"