🧵Arguments as to what level of due process is owed to those who entered the country illegally and/or are remaining in the country illegally after removal orders assume that some level of due process is owed. That fundamental assumption is now being questioned, as was inevitable. I state, routinely, that due process is nigh to a miracle which has taken centuries for mankind to even approach respecting as it flies in the face of human nature. I also state, routinely, that people should stop running around waving lit flares in rooms full of kerosene.

🧵Somewhere I have a copy of a letter sent to the Psychopaths signed by all three judges of an appellate court panel stating that the appellate brief and oral argument were among the finest that the panel members ever saw. Collectively, the panel had over 90 years on the bench. I did all the research and wrote about 95% of the brief. One of my bosses did the oral argument. It is surpassingly rare for an appellate panel to send a letter like that. Why is this not framed and hanging on my office wall even 20 odd years later? Because we lost the appeal.

🧵If US companies have off shored manufacturing due to US laws and regulations, why is it acceptable for those same companies to import the goods back to the US with impunity? The companies are point blank avoiding US laws in doing so. That's what's at issue. When you drill down, all the way down, into the matters that people flatly refuse to address directly, that's what is going on. It's too expensive to make whatever in the US due to the US laws so we'll go somewhere those laws don't exist and then just bring the stuff back.

🧵Yesterday there was another round of oh look the Girls on SCOTUS ruled together, what did you expect. I couldn't help but notice the minor bit about Justice Barrett who joined in portions of the dissent. Thus I went to see what Barrett actually did. Here's the link to the decision. There's no need for PACER, it's nicely publicly available, anyone can go and look at the original source to see what, exactly, Barrett did. Here you go.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…

🧵 In the Era of the Golden Scalp Weasel came the Great Unmasking.

What do I mean by this? Well, get yourself a snack and beverage of choice and I shall explain.

All set?

Let's get it. The Golden Scalp Weasel is Trump's hair. I thought this was obvious, however, I've had questions. So. That.

What, however, is the Great Unmasking?

The Great Unmasking is that people are being forced to state their actual positions, not simply make mouth noises about issues.

🧵 Since oh noes Trump and Elon are going to cut and destroy Social Security and Medicare is going around, no matter how many times both of them deny planning or wanting to do any such thing, I am reminded of one of the many reasons I call the Psychopaths, the Psychopaths. The Managing Partner, hereinafter B, got it in her head that I did a certain thing that not only did I not do, it was not possible for me to have done this, as I was not in the office when this occurred. Despite this, she was adamant I did this thing.

🧵I do not know how to type this gently so I'm just going to type this. American judicial legitimacy is already gone. It does not matter how SCOTUS rules on the various and sundry cases addressing Article II powers. Whatever side loses will consider the rulings illegitimate. I will also say this, I have no idea how those rulings are going to turn out and neither does anyone else. I know how at least 4 justices are likely to rule due to Alito's dissent in the USAID TRO issue. I can WAG about what Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett will do.

🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School where I discuss how the legal profession very much needs to take seriously concerns of the Normies (here used in a non pejorative sense to mean those without a legal background) as to the speed of appeals. Get caffeine and let's go Since Roberts decided to make let the appellate process play out the official commentary by SCOTUS on *gestures wildly* what the District Courts are doing, it is rather incumbent on those in the legal profession to understand why that sounds like kicking the can down the road.

🧵I haven't fully worked this through yet though I do think there is something here.

The battle over Federal employees having to return to the office and being asked to provide a brief report on prior week's work is a proxy battle for accountability on the Federal level at all There has been building for decades an immense frustration by the general public over how those who work for the Feds only ever seem to fail upwards. I look at matters from the perspective of the Right, due to my personal political beliefs. It is not only from the Right.

🧵Pigs get fed. Hogs get slaughtered.

The deal for moving from a spoils system to a civil service system for government workers contained exchanges. The government workers were paid less than in the public sector. In exchange, they received job protections and a pension. The exchange on the workers' side was that they were accepting that they were to be politically neutral in the carrying out their jobs. Since their jobs were no longer dependent on pleasing the politician that got them the job, they were to be neutral.

🧵I think it's very important for people to comprehend that substantial numbers of Democrats and nearly the entirety of the Left and, sadly, far too many supposedly on the Right, don't consider what we are seeing with, say, USAID as being fraud. They see it as being morally just. This is not due to getting kickbacks or working for an NGO or getting government grant money to run studies or pick your favorite here. It is because that group believes that what is being done is, in fact, what the US government is supposed to do.

🧵A warning to all my legal peeps, most notably myself, that we are ignoring the Normies' responses to the lawfare at our own peril. The Normies are sick of all of this with reason. So grab your coffee, which we all know has a solid 80% chance of being Irish, and let's get it. We, the legal peeps, are going on about having to respect the legal process and sure, sure, it may take a bit and that's annoying but the mills of God grind slowly but fine and just you wait, Thomas is going to benchslap the national injunctions, don't you worry about it!

Thread with long post warnings with screenshots:

The wonderful thing about PACER is that anyone can have access to it, it's cheap to pull documents, and, other than matters under seal, it's all public record.

So since, as we all know, I'm a law geek and since I wanted to know just who it was that drafted the language that was just in Judge Engelmayer's TRO on the Treasury access case, I did the obvious thing and looked it up.

Here's the screenshot showing the initial filing of the proposed order to show cause with emergency relief along with the screenshot of the proposed order and, because I love this so much, the screenshot showing this was served at 7:32 p.m. on February 7, 2025. This is also known as 7:32 p.m. on a Friday night.


Here is the actual order issued by the Court on Saturday, February 8, 2025 which includes that it must be served by email by noon on that Saturday.

🧵I see, and have seen for years and years and years, all the comments about how employees are entitled and they don't want to work and they expect everything handed to them and no one is entitled to a job. Well. An employer isn't entitled to an employee either. There is, and has been for as long as I can remember and I'm upper end Gen X, this undercurrent in discussions about employment that employers are entitled to employees, that when a company is hiring, potential employees should be grateful that is even occurring.

🧵To build on the first principles discussion, let us have a chat about how people refuse (or are unable) to articulate the specifics of their position. I will focus on the Americans must compete globally for jobs discussion (and I am being gracious calling it so). Let's get it. The purported discussion is that this is a global economy and Americans should be prepared to and expect to compete against those from other countries for jobs. Okay. Fine. Before we have that discussion, let us define what is being discussed.

🧵 Nearly all of our current discussions are pointless because people do not articulate, let alone understand, the first principles from which they are arguing, to say nothing of understanding the first princples of those with different views. This is a major problem. What are first principles? First principles are the principles which provide the foundation for all other positions that flow from them. In other words, the fundamental way a topic is viewed determines how and what each side is arguing.

Thread on how decisions are only as good as the information on which they are based and the pernicious effects of bad, if not outright falsified, information. This is going to spring off a discussion of ghost jobs. Get your caffeine conveyance beverage of choice and let's get it. There is an ever growing problem with the posting of ghost jobs. What is a ghost job? A ghost job is a job posting for a job that does not actually exist. The company that posts that job is not hiring for that position. The company is using the job listing for other reasons.

🧵Thread will contain the following: a link to the 2022 Jay report; screenshot of the summary list of recommendations; screenshots of each recommendation. I will make no comments on any of the recommendations. My only comments are in the next two tweets as to why I'm doing this. There is multiple statements that there is no need for an additional inquiry in the UK as the Jay report was issued in 2022 and all that is needed is to implement the recommendations. What is not included is a link to the Jay report and what those recommendations are.

🧵There is, and has been for decades, an utter crisis of accountability in nearly all kinds of institutions on every level of society. The dangers of this should be obvious. Yet, those who are in positions of authority act as if that scent wafting up from their actions is roses. My absolutely DNA level loathing of the administrative state stems, nearly wholly, from the accountability issue. When matters are determined by legislation, at least the public can look and see how their elected representative voted and respond accordingly.

🧵 No one wants to work hard and no one is loyal to their employers is going around again and, since I am who I am as a person, let me see if I can break down how people are defining those terms. Go, fetch a snack and a drink, and then let's get it. No one wants to work hard. Okay, what is meant here by work hard? Look the 80/20 rule has been around probably as long as people have been (you don't think don't work don't eat is in the Bible for funsies, do you?). That doesn't appear to be the issue.

🧵 The H1B argument contains within it a fundamental dispute that is not apparent yet very important, namely, that the de facto manner in which it is applied violates the compromises made to pass the legislation de jure. This applies to many matters *koff* Motor Voter *koff* Laws represent the compromises made to pass the law. In the H1B case, the compromise was between those who wanted an easier way to hire foreign workers legally and those who were concerned about the effect on domestic work force.