It was a shrewd move by Trump to replace the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Whether the new choices were more loyal to Trump than to the Constitution is unknown, but the message was clear. Trump would not tolerate general staff that would pull a Milley, tell him what he didn’t want to hear such as it being wrong to shoot protesters in the legs. After long and distinguished military careers, they would be unceremoniously fired by the Commander in Chief if they did not do as he commanded, whether his commands were lawful, ethical or just dumb.

In a speech at the newly re-renamed Fort Bragg, Trump did what Trump invariably does.

It is too much to call it a “speech”; it was, instead, a ramble, full of grievance and anger, just like his many political-rally performances. He took the stage to Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA”—which has become a MAGA anthem—and then pointed to the “fake news,” encouraging military personnel to jeer at the press. Continue reading →

One of the really good things about the Trump administration is that it rarely leaves anyone in doubt about why it does things. When Karoline Leavitt (no, I will not join the chorus of people calling her “Bullshit Barbie”) announced that the Associated Press was banned from pressers in the Oval or on Air Force 1, the American or Qatar flavor, the reason was clear, leaving no doubt for the D.C. Circuit in reaching its conclusion.

On February 11, 2025, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt informed the AP that it would not be permitted in the Oval Office or press pool unless it revised its Stylebook to refer to the Gulf of America, which President Trump had recently renamed from the Gulf of Mexico. The President and other senior White House officials publicly stated that the reason for the AP’s exclusion was its continued use of the name Gulf of Mexico. The AP was similarly excluded from events in the East Room, despite signing up in advance through the reservation process.

Continue reading →

Like anyone else trying to watch Eva Longoria’s new CNN show about food in Spain, I saw the images of cars burning, scooters being thrown onto police cars on the road below, street signed torn out, graffiti painted and flags of terrorism being proudly waved by the standard issue lefties desperately seeking to get back into the fight game.

Like you, I remember the George Floyd “most peaceful” riots with buildings aflame in the background. I remember little to nothing being done to stop the burning, looting and destruction. I remember the feeling of outrage and frustration at watching wanton destruction by idiot children who had yet to contribute anything useful to society and likely never would. Continue reading →

In a decision so cursory as to be flip, six members of the Supreme Court gave the most private, and beforehand the most confidential, of government information away. They didn’t even sell it for a decent price. They just gave it away. And with that, they murdered privacy.

When considering whether to grant a stay, this Court looks to four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U. S. 770, 776 (1987)). After review, we determine that the application of these factors in this case warrants granting the requested stay. We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.

Continue reading →

Hello, friends! It’s your humble humorist with a quick check in before I flee blessed Knoxville for the harsh environs of Vermont for my father-in-law’s birthday. I have an exciting announcement to make: I’m a published musician now!

Don’t congratulate me too much. There’s a bit of a dumb story here.

I got into a mood last week when I injured my shoulder and decided I wanted to learn how to DJ. How I was to do this, I had zero idea, but that’s what the internet is for, right? Learning random shit at a moment’s notice?

After arguing with my nine-year-old son that yes, I totally could create an album in a day and being determined to prove I’m right, I decided to take an efficiency shortcut. I used an AI app to create my DJ name. Continue reading →

Contrary to Linda Greenhouse’s years of angsting about the Supreme Court, it’s becoming increasingly clear that it’s neither as divided as its haters believe nor blindly partisan. This isn’t to say that there aren’t problems or some really awful decisions coming out of One First Street, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinion for a unanimous Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services serves to demonstrate that the Court hasn’t yet forsaken the law for preferred outcomes. Not this time, at least.

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers, saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group.

Continue reading →

I’ve long been unimpressed with algos. I mostly get online advertisements for things I’ve already bought, and accordingly don’t need, and the legal AI I’ve seen and tested generally sucks. Put aside the hallucinations, which are inexplicable, but the mundane legal content is shallow, repetitive crap that fills space and does little more. So, I have little fear that this garbage AI is coming for me anytime soon. Then again, I may be wrong.

Picture this: You give a bot notice that you’ll shut it down soon, and replace it with a different artificial intelligence system. In the past, you gave it access to your emails. In some of them, you alluded to the fact that you’ve been having an affair. The bot threatens you, telling you that if the shutdown plans aren’t changed, it will forward the emails to your wife. Continue reading →

The law profs keep writing, because that’s what academics do. They write. They write and write, and then write some more. They can somehow manage to turn a thousand word blog post into a hundred-page law review article without adding an iota of substance. I don’t say this out of spite, but out of envy. We used to have a blawgosphere, and of the many parts of the blawgosphere, one of the most robust was the practical criminal defense blawgosphere.

There isn’t much of it left. In fact, other than the occasional post from the ether, there isn’t really any of it left. I realized this when a post popped up on my RSS feed (remember those?) from Jeff Gamso. First, go read Jeff’s post. I’ll wait. Continue reading →

Over the years, I’ve expressed many differences with the American Bar Association, ranging from its shift from a stodgy old guard lawyer group to an extremely progressive left wing political organization, driving away many, if not  most, of its dues-paying members who wanted nothing to do with its newfound woke ideology to Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g).

Nonetheless, because of its legacy as the “foremost” voluntary lawyer membership organization, the ABA held two positions that enabled it to pretend it was a serious organization. The first, a review and opinion as to the qualification of nominees for federal judgeships, including the Supreme Court. This had been tenuous over the past decade as the ABA’s ratings became increasingly subject to its view of the nominee’s politics and ideology. By letter, Attorney General Pam Bondi put an end to the ABA’s role altogether. That doesn’t mean the next president won’t restore its role, but for now, it’s toast. Continue reading →

Someone had to do it, and Leonard Leo stepped into the breach. After his election in 2016, Trump was in an awkward position. Despite all the bluff and swagger, Donald Trump was completely unprepared to do the job, one critical piece of which was the appointment of judges, the most critical of which was the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court. Trump had no clue who to pick, and so he needed someone with the basic knowledge of who was who. Leo, a Cornell educated lawyer and long-time vice president of the Federalist Society, filled the role of advising Trump.

Trump thought Leo was giving him names of justices who would be “his guys,” reliably serving him and being his rubber stamp. Whether this was because Trump didn’t understand the role judges and justices play, mistaking their conservative bona fides for being his minions on the courts, is unclear. Continue reading →