This @nytimes.com article isn't as bad as its headline, but we do not need think pieces about a war effort that is openly contemptuous of human rights. The only way out of this mess is to confront what the US has become under Trump/Hegseth.
The asymmetry of the value placed on human life is so striking. Israel has a goal to recover 40-year-old remains; to do so, it invades a sovereign country, and the lives of 26 Lebanese are an afterthought. Their names not even worth printing in the New York Times.
Seems bad
I am mentally preparing myself for total Democratic surrender.
It would be political malpractice not to demand the redirecting of ICE's OBBB slush fund before agreeing to any supplement.
It’s not disingenuous to point out that the NYT did not run a single front page story of the Minab bombing. You don’t dispute this claim because it’s true. And the story that you reference on your webpage does not attribute blame to US/Israel and frames it as an allegation by “Iranian state media”
Every day Pete Hegseth confesses to war crimes in front of the whole world.
It is time for Senator Blake Griffin (D-OK).
90% over here.
How about using ICE's slush fund for the Iran War, which you will inevitably fund anyway?
I did not expect this to be a problem for another year or two. My sympathies to the law review editors. Our broken system has somehow gotten worse.
Knew it.
Big bakery propaganda.
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: In 174, this Court ordered Defendants to file a list of all individuals whose role as attorney forms the basis for a claim of privilege. The Court directed, as to each attorney, identification of that person's employer and the party or parties represented by that individual in the relevant communication. Defendants filed such a list at 182 . In reviewing this list, the Court recognizes two individuals who are known to the Court to be non-lawyers. In 182, each is described as "Attorney" and each is described as representing specific Defendants. The Court has not audited the full list. Defendants are ordered to closely re-review docket 182 and, by 3:00 p.m. on 3/4/26, file either a corrected list (in alphabetical order please) or a statement that Defendants are standing by the representations in 182 . This revised filing shall be submitted over a signature of counsel of record. As with 182, this filing may be submitted under seal. If Defendants confirm that certain individuals should not have been included in the list of counsel, Defendants are directed to review all claims of privilege involving these individuals and, if appropriate, disclose to the Plaintiffs and the Court any documents over which Defendants are no longer asserting privilege. Mailed notice (McNally, Laura) (Entered: 03/03/2026)
How bad is the DOJ at lawyering these days? According to the Broadview ICE case (IL), they are listing non-attorneys as attorneys in court documents.
💯
Re: Texas, it was a slog to get the CDC to pursue disciplinary action, and you obviously know how that turned out. These kinds of cases consume tons of scarce resources--it's not just a matter of political climate.
I agree that it is wholly illegal, but they also seem to lack an enforcement mechanism. This is part of an larger pattern of treating federal officers as immune from state proceedings. See also ICE officers.
Cf. Stanley Fish, at the Ethics of Legal Scholarship conference we held at Marquette a decade or so ago.
State bars are generally reluctant to investigate DOJ attorneys. See, e.g., americanoversight.org/american-ove.... State bar discipline may stop almost entirely on grounds of comity.
This seems to be more of a case of preemption than commandeering, although I suppose they could characterize it as comity.
This is a flagrant misreading of federal law and a possible violation of the 10th amendment. I am not sure how much it changes things on the ground in the short term, however. Most state bars have been hesitant to even consider complaints against DOJ attorneys, alas. Litigation likely.
Good opportunity to claw back ICE's OBBB funding if Democrats take it (they won't).
Trump just gave us a Top Gun reboot.
I am by no means an expert, but does the administration think that the Kurds have collective amnesia? www.pbs.org/newshour/sho...
So, in launching a huge bombing campaign on Iran they apparently didn't plan for:
- Who takes over;
- Interceptor shortages from sustained drone retaliation;
- How to defend US bases in the region;
- Threats to ships in the Strait of Hormuz; and
- How to evacuate Americans with airspace closed.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity to present Equal Justice & Generative AI to @tulanelaw.bsky.social's faculty yesterday. Thank you to @maybell.bsky.social and company for the kind invitation and hospitality.
Thanks. My understanding--not having worked there--was that the SG makes the call but would inform/consult with the AG on high profile cases. But the decision to reverse course on appeal seems like it came directly from someone in the WH.
In a normally functioning DOJ, would the President even weigh in on an appeal?
My full take: 1. EOs should have never been issued because they are clearly unconstitutional. 2. Lawyers should have refused to defend them because of 1. 3. Reversing course on appeal because of Stephen Miller or whomever is an abrogation of independent professional judgment.
