Sign in

penguinonepal.bsky.social

@penguinonepal.bsky.social
150 followers 400 following 92 posts

Anonymous US law student! Here to follow the convos on all types of law (and probably procrastinating)

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Cristian Farias @cristianfarias.com · 03/01/2026
Best thing I’ve read this morning, from a human rights lawyer in Mexico. Translation is in the ALT-text.
Twitter thread in Spanish by José Mario de la Garza, a human rights lawyer in Mexico, translated using Google Translate:

1. Overthrowing a dictator sounds morally right. No one mourns a tyrant. But international law wasn't built to protect the good, but to restrain the powerful. That's why it prohibits force almost without exception: not because it ignores injustice, but because it knows that if each country decides whom to "liberate" by force, the world reverts to the law of the strongest.

2. The problem is not Maduro. The problem is the precedent. When military force is used to change governments without clear rules, sovereignty ceases to be a limit and becomes an obstacle. Today it is “overthrowing a dictator”; tomorrow it will be “correcting an election,” “protecting interests,” “restoring order.” The law does not absolve dictatorships, but neither does it legitimize unilateral crusades.Cont’d:

3. The uncomfortable question is not whether a tyrant deserves to fall, but who decides when and how. Because history teaches something brutal: removing a dictator is easy; building justice afterward is not. And when legality is broken in the name of good, what almost always follows is not freedom, but chaos, violence, and new victims. The law exists to remind us of this, even when it makes us uncomfortable.Maduro isn't the problem: he's the face of the problem. Removing him from power would be merely opening the door. Behind him is the machine: Rodríguez, Cabello, the military command, the operators of repression and plunder. If you only change the person at the top and leave the system intact, what follows isn't democracy: it's a reshuffling.

And there's something even more difficult: Chavismo didn't just capture institutions, it captured daily life. Economy, media, bureaucracy, employment, fear, favors, blackmail. A country can't be "de-Chavistaized" by decree or by an electoral miracle. The real transition begins when that network is broken without setting the country ablaze.

The challenge is enormous, and it's also a moral one: to unite without vengeance, but without impunity. Targeted justice for those most responsible, truth for the victims, guarantees that the rest will dismantle the system, and a plan for people to live again—not just survive. Because freedom doesn't come with a new president: it comes when the state ceases to be a threat.
3927961346
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Steven Mazie @stevenmazie.bsky.social · 26/09/2025
Justice Kagan writes a dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. The majority has “enabled the presidential usurpation of Congress‘s power of the purse”.
07033
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Free Law Project ⚖ @free.law · 31/07/2025
Thanks Orin! Lots of details here for those interested: bsky.app/profile/free...
023
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Trump Litigation Bot @trumplitigation.bots.law · 24/07/2025
New filing: "State of Washington v. Trump (Birthright Citizenship (Appeal))" Doc #163-1: Opinion Download PDF | View Full Case #CL69621321
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.Thumbnail of page 2 of the PDF linked above.Thumbnail of page 3 of the PDF linked above.Thumbnail of page 4 of the PDF linked above.
001
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Anne Joseph O’Connell @ajosephoconnell.bsky.social · 23/07/2025
Since @orinkerr.bsky.social asked, a thread, from limited information reported online, about how I see the US attorney mess in DNJ. 1. Trump picked Habba as interim US Attorney under 28 USC 546. Technically, the AG is supposed to pick, but whatever. She gets 120 days to serve.
12672174
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Charlotte Garden @charlottegarden.bsky.social · 14/07/2025
I'm not pollyannaish about the Court, but I'm still shocked by this - there will be an enormous amount of chaos, and damage that cannot be undone. And zero explanation from the 6 justices in the majority.
68924
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Blake Emerson @blakeprof.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
It’s like we get treated to two levels of arbitrary rule: first Trump, and then the Court, when they summarily stay lower court orders.
0305
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
Glad to see Justice Jackson making this really essential point. If only she wasn't making it alone.
The Court’s disregard for the District Court’s factfinding
(and also, apparently, for the applicable standards of re-
view) would be troubling enough when viewed through a
mere procedural lens. But it is all the more puzzling, and
ultimately disheartening, given the extraordinary risk of
harm that today’s ruling immediately unleashes.
No one seriously disputes that, if implemented, Executive
Order No. 14210 will lead to enormous real-world conse-
quences. This executive action promises mass employee
terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs
and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal
Government as Congress has created it. As the Ninth Cir-
cuit concluded, the statutory shortfalls likely to result from
implementation of this Executive Order will be immensely
painful to the general public, and the plaintiffs, in the in-
terim, causing harm that includes “proliferat[ing] food-
borne disease,” perpetuating “hazardous environmental
conditions,” “eviscerat[ing] disaster loan services for local
businesses,” and “drastically reduc[ing] the provision ofhealthcare and other services to our nation’s veterans.”
App. 94a. Preventing those kinds of calamities is just a
small slice of the work that federal employees do to carry
out Congress’s statutory mandates—work that the Execu-
tive Order immediately imperils if implemented.
Consider the harms to democracy, too, if it turns out that
the plaintiffs and the lower courts are right that the Presi-
dent is unilaterally changing the structure of the Federal
Government. What one person (or President) might call bu-
reaucratic bloat is a farmer’s prospect for a healthy crop, a
coal miner’s chance to breathe free from black lung, or a
preschooler’s opportunity to learn in a safe environment.
The details of the programs that this executive action tar-
gets are the product of policy choices that Congress has
made—a representative democracy at work. While the
President no doubt has the authority to manage the Execu-
tive Branch, our system does not allow the President to re-
write laws on his own under the guise of that authority.
010
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 03/07/2025
"Today’s order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial."
648283
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 23/06/2025
I'm writing this post in high dudgeon because what the Court endorsed today is unamerican and contemptuous not just of the role of the judiciary but also of the responsibility we have as a nation to those in our custody and those we subject to punishment. I'm mad as hell. You should be too.
251904439
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Bobby Kogan @bbkogan.bsky.social · 22/06/2025
The third traunche of Byrd bath results is out! Unsurprising but very welcome news - Republicans may not limit the ability of federal courts to issue preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders www.budget.senate.gov/ranking-memb...
budget.senate.gov
More Provisions in Republicans’ “One Big, Beautiful Bill” Are Subject to Byrd Rule, Parliamentarian Advises | U.S. Senate Committee On The Budget
The Official U.S. Senate Committee On The Budget
732283
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Matthew Stiegler @matthewstiegler.bsky.social · 13/06/2025
I'm in the minority, and maybe a small one, but I think these administrative stays are genuinely harmful and should not be treated as routine. A federal court has ruled that a dramatic step of national significance was illegal and unconstitutional. It ruled. 1/
20643151
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Trump Litigation Bot @trumplitigation.bots.law · 05/06/2025
New filing: "Aviel v. Gor (IAF Dismantling [Appeal])" Doc #1208746275: Per Curiam Order Filed (Special Panel) Download PDF | View Full Case #CL69853472
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.Thumbnail of page 2 of the PDF linked above.Thumbnail of page 3 of the PDF linked above.Thumbnail of page 4 of the PDF linked above.
001