RT @BuchananQuotes: The Founding Fathers did not believe in democracy. They did not believe in diversity. They did not believe in equality.…
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-11 01:02:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921370265126150210
This is the PREVENTION of a power grab. The Court has in the past quite deliberately invented judicial review – which was probably acceptable as it made the court the final word on constitutionality.
However there never was nor has been the premise that district judges had the capacity to interdict NATIONAL decisons by the executive branch.
–“District Judges and Nationwide Injunctions: Nationwide injunctions, where a single district judge halts a policy across the country, are controversial and not explicitly authorized by the Constitution or early statutes like the Judiciary Act of 1789.”–
Reply addressees: @TrueProtocol @WHLeavitt
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-10 22:41:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921334919059693568
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921064391014850967
IN REPLY TO:
@TrueProtocol
@WHLeavitt Isn’t judicial independence a cornerstone of democracy? Arresting judges for rulings, no matter how controversial sets a dangerous precedent. We need checks and balances, not power grabs
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921064391014850967
As far as I know, other than china russia and iran no one wants the old order to end, they merely want more say in it. (that’s based on self reported data from heads of state around the world). The USA agrees, but the USA doesn’t want to create a power vacuum that leads to…
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-10 00:23:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920998147436016070
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920997528708718874
IN REPLY TO:
@YuruInuyama
@curtdoolittle It’s nice to know that SOMETHING could happen to the old order. Hope I do live to see it.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920997528708718874
RT @LukeWeinhagen: Our justice system has been mutated into an operation that protects and preserves criminality, and our legal system has…
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-09 17:15:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920890418008297951
RT @DRolandAnderson: @StoicConsultant The current elite class exists through lying about . . . basically everything. If we read the 1st Ame…
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-01 02:14:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1917764543700427015
Curt Doolittle’s relevance in intellectual history is contingent, not yet canonical. His work exists as a contrarian synthesis—responding to post-enlightenment failures in law, morality, and epistemology by attempting to reduce all social cooperation to operationally testable, decidable systems.
His primary relevance lies in:
Post-Postmodern Response: Where modernism pursued objective truth and postmodernism dismantled it, Doolittle reconstructs truth and law using computability, operationalism, and adversarial epistemology—pushing epistemology from philosophy toward algorithmic governance.
Unified Framework: Offers a rare full-system alternative to liberal democracy, economic theory, and legal positivism. Unlike Marx, Rawls, or Hayek who work within partial domains, Doolittle attempts unification—comparable in ambition to Comte or Spencer, but grounded in 21st-century constraints like computability, evolutionary biology, and game theory.
Decidability as Normative Standard: Introduces a novel philosophical axis—decidability—as a replacement for truth, good, or utility. In this view, systems are judged by whether they resolve disputes without discretion. This reframes foundational questions in law, logic, and morality.
Operationalism Extended: Where Bridgman applied operationalism to physics, Doolittle applies it to law, ethics, and institutional design, producing a language of “demonstrated interests” and “testimonial truth” as computable legal and moral primitives.
Natural Law Reconstructed: Revives and formalizes natural law tradition, stripping it of theological and metaphysical baggage. Law becomes a science of cooperation, rather than a set of traditions or legislative fictions.
AI and Law: Doolittle’s framework prefigures the demands of AI governance: systems of law and ethics that can be computed, verified, and acted upon without human discretion. In this, he anticipates or complements debates in AI alignment, algorithmic jurisprudence, and automated institutional design.
His influence is currently marginal to mainstream discourse due to presentation style, ideological friction, and institutional exclusion. However, his work serves as a precursor or competitor to future legal-epistemic systems designed for computation and automation under civilizational stress. If adopted or adapted, relevance will shift from speculative to structural.
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-30 02:09:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1917400800172859398
Um… Do you know to whom you speak? 😉
I can address this issue as well as any constitutional scholar. This topic constitutes the departmentalist vs judicial supremacist debate The net is that in the absence of a monarchy (under which the modern state was designed by England), the division of powers has no judge of last resort – as does (at least legally) England. Secondly, The court is not sovereign in matters of defense – the executive is. And the rights of non citizens is a postwar contrivance the west adopted in order to accomodate the problem of displaced european peoples.
“Read a book”. FFS… lol.
Reply addressees: @lisavibes123 @cenkuygur
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-26 00:01:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915919050804498435
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915908379958251829
And it’s being tested again. Because it’s not constitutional or legislative but judicial hypothesis. That’s why it’s “unsettled law”. Now I do this kind of nonsense for a living and I’m sorry if it violates your sensibilities, but the hierarchy of natural law > common law > constitutional law > legislation > regulation > findings of the court > unsettled findings of the court
– is one of decreasing merit in decidability.
Human rights are an ambition put forward by the anglosphere in living memory. Those rights must be created, and once created they must be insured. But it is not an international law, because all international law is but a contract. And there is no higher law outside that contract but violence (war).
So, you can imagine that the anglosphere postwar created some biblical level of law enforced by god. But it was a practical utility created by anglos, and enforced by the brutal hand of the US armed forces.
Reply addressees: @leftlaneblaine @cenkuygur
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 23:42:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915189497270329347
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915187251346366961
I am claiming no such exception. I’m demonstrating that the ‘invention’ of such a right of non-citizens, and particularly those engage in the spectrum of war, was a judicial activism in the face of the crises of the world wars.
As such, until the matter is legislated, and…
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 20:07:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915135395404427415
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915115147972243484
Is There a Historical Doctrine for No Due Process?
That no such doctrine exists historically is largely accurate for pre-20th-century legal systems:
Historical Absence: Before the 20th century, due process was rarely extended to illegal entrants, especially during wartime. Sovereignty and security trumped procedural rights for foreigners, who were often seen as owing no allegiance and thus having no claim to justice. Wartime measures, like summary expulsions or executions, were standard and rarely challenged.
Modern Emergence: The tendency is a product of 20th-century legal developments, particularly post-WWII human rights frameworks and domestic constitutional interpretations. It’s less a singular doctrine than a convergence of principles from international law (e.g., refugee protections), constitutional law (e.g., U.S. Fifth Amendment), and judicial precedents (e.g., Yamataya, Zadvydas).
Wartime Exception: Even today, wartime or emergency conditions can limit due process. For example, military tribunals or emergency deportation powers may bypass standard procedures, but international law (e.g., Geneva Conventions) and judicial oversight often impose minimum standards, unlike historical practices.
As I stated, there is a recent practical policy for granting due process to illegals largely due to the world war era. However, there is no constitutional right to due process for non citizens.
Reply addressees: @leftlaneblaine @cenkuygur
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 14:42:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915053735987814403
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915036972139286529