Theo, “Rosary Extremist”

@ClarenceMaximus The only argument I can think of is a surprise and unannounced adoption of desuetude- but the Comstock Act is hardly that old or unused

I think it’s basically impossible to both be a textualist and disagree with Thomas on the applicability of the Comstock act, so I have to assume the other justices had some reason to ignore it. Do they think that a DOJ stance against enforcement means that there’s suddenly a judicially cognizable interest in engaging in criminal conduct? Seems crazy given past decisions that have found no cognizable interest for much flimsier reasons.

@theblessedsalt You’re arguing at a straw man - your answer converts “NFP is not truly open to life” to “not having sex is a contraceptive act” - but those aren’t the same claims. You bypass the actual argument and make a mockery of a different one.

Argument: NFP is not truly open to life. It makes use of those times when conception is most unlikely. NFP is a sin just like contraception. Answer: If you want to claim that not having sex is a contraceptive act — a sin I’d wager the reader is engaged in at this very moment! 😱 — you’d certainly be original, but you wouldn’t be at all correct. Unfortunately, this argument is a popular one and it’s thrown many opponents of contraception for a loop, while giving many faithful Catholics scruples over trusting the Church’s moral guidance. The apparent strength of the argument, however, is an illusion, as it consists of arbitrarily defining “openness to life” as one wills and then excluding anything else. We can disprove it simply by accepting its own logic for a moment. You could just as ludicrously state that using a condom is open to life because there’s always the chance it might break or that abortions are open to life because “the little guy might just make it and become another pro-life abortion survivor on the speaking circuit in 30 years.” All these claims make the same mistake: they posit that what makes a method of birth control “open to life” is the relative likelihood of failure, as if you’re only open to life if you might still get pregnant. But this is entirely false. In fact, even a 100% effective NFP method would remain open to life because what makes an act open to life is that the couple has done nothing to frustrate the natural ability of a particular sexual act — whatever that ability might be at a given time — to result in conception. In point of fact, it is impossible for NFP to be contraceptive. It is even impossible for it to be used with “contraceptive intent” because contraception means “against conception” and NFP does not work against conception. “Well, that’s all well and good concerning sexual acts engaged in during infertility, but what about sexual acts avoided during fertility?” I refer you back to my opening snark attack. Just as sexual acts during fertility can’t be contraceptive, it is complementarily — and more obviously — the case that periodic abstinence cannot be contraceptive. After all, abstaining during fertile periods is not a sexual act at all, so how could it be a contraceptive sexual act?? Nevertheless, Humanae Vitae does call for a just cause to be used for avoidance of sex during the fertile times. Why is that? Because even though NFP can’t be contraceptive, nor even have a contraceptive intention behind it, even otherwise good acts can be tainted by sinful motives. We are thus required to ensure that our reasons for using NFP to avoid conception are noble rather than selfish, that they comport with the great dignity of the life-giving sexual faculties.

@docMJP Restaurants could be here I hate restaurants

These damn restaurants gotta stop shooting people.

@mike_frags @EdWhelanEPPC That might tend to call into question his “expertise,” at minimum

You know what’s wild about this frivolous appeal? The counsel of record was an expert witness against John Eastman. From his report: “[N]o reasonable lawyer exercising diligence appropriate to the circumstances would adopt Dr. Eastman’s legal positions on either issue.” Indeed.

@HabCorpLinguist Unfortunately I suspect Judge Wilkinson would sooner die on the bench than let President Trump replace him

Regular reminder: one of the Republican-appointed judges on the 4th Circuit eligible to take senior status should do so, and Jason should be appointed to replace them

Sounds like they didn’t really need asylum here then did they if they’re able to just give up the claim and leave.

@EWess92 Wasn’t the opinion written by a Democrat appointee too?

Virginia's Attorney General Jay Jones attacks the Supreme Court of Virginia as partisan. He believes counting early voting as part of an "election" is "contorting" the Virginia Constitution. He calls their decision "dangerous". While mild rhetoric for Jones, seems norms-defying

Before even getting into Red State redistricting, what would the overall political map look like correcting for the "Census Errors" of 2020, and eliminating all racially gerrymandered districts? How about if we were to then remove non-citizens from the Census count?

Reason's principled stand here should be the baseline. When I read an article about a lawsuit, the first thing I want to do is cross-check it with the court docs. Articles without links to the court documents are shoddy and reflect poorly on the editors who let them through.

@brady_penfield @NotreDame And in a “spotlight” end cap no less. The bar is low, but the admins keep tripping over it.

Why does the University of @NotreDame , a Catholic school, have a Pride book in its spotlight section at the University Bookstore? This is something I would expect from a public university but not a Catholic University.

Our medical system is so unbelievably cooked. Stay healthy friends. Your doctor in twenty years might accidentally let you die for having the wrong beliefs if you don’t.

@ProfMJCleveland If they reverse the panel decision (which undoubtedly the full DC Circuit will if they take it en banc) the Admin should appeal to SCOTUS.

Un.Real. Court of Appeals orders Trump Administration to file a response to Petition for Rehearing re Boasberg's Vendetta.

So many reasons to celebrate Justice Thomas's tenure at the Supreme Court. Certainly, his long-standing commitment to deep dive originalism. It's changed how briefs are written and influenced the rise of history based constitutional interpretation. But, there is also the incredible and inspiring story of the man himself. If you haven't read the book yet, do. Amazing.

Congratulations to United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who today becomes the second longest-serving Supreme Court Justice in American history. 🧵

One of the most pernicious myths the media promotes is that it enjoys special First Amendment rights. That lie has been repeated so relentlessly, for so long, that it has taken on the aura of self evident truth for a large part of the public. In reality, so called journalists have exactly the same First Amendment protections as everyone else. There is no special carve out. When the First Amendment refers to “the press,” it is not granting privileges to a professional class. It is referring to the printing press as a means of disseminating information, not to a group of people. This basic point is so widely misunderstood that it should be taught explicitly in schools. Put it on the blackboard and make everyone write it out a hundred times: the media has the same First Amendment rights as everyone else.

@EWess92 UMich law taking serious hits - this right after Litman’s latest outburst

Disappointing to see this ad hominem attack. "Fuentes Fed Soc" is pretty sick stuff from a law professor. I cannot imagine a conservative law professor attacking his own students like this. I understand politics are corrosive, but sad to see

@HabCorpLinguist Sorry only 1Ls

Just saw that a judge I want to clerk for is hiring for 2028. I hope he’s considering applicants who would be mid to senior associates by then lol

From DOJ to Ballot Box: The Rise of Lawfare Candidates | RealClearInvestigations realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2026/…

@Vermeullarmine Privately I’m sure, but how many are so brazen as to say it publicly, in a published format?

To be fair, this is pretty standard fare from legal academics now

@derektmuller Perry Mason (“Mason”) . . .