Reposted by Coriolus Nimrod
The Constitution says that in cases of impeachment, "the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." It does not except the president. But what impeachable offenses aren't covered by the new doctrine of immunity?
21 replies
72 reposts
350 likes
Also, a bribe is by its nature a payment for an official act, and you can't offer any evidence that the official act was actually done.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Is evidence of motive inadmissible for the purposes of habeas, or just for the purpose of criminal prosecution of presidents and ex-presidents?
I am not saying I have a lot of faith SCOTUS would not expand the principle, but I understood they had not done so yet.
1 replies
0 reposts
4 likes
Well, at least there is no precedent of presidents suspending habeas corpus. Or just ignoring it to imprison more than a hundred thousand people based on a racist assumption the Supreme Court happened to share.
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
It is incredible to me how incapable people are of recognizing injustice that benefits them. There are people who can, of course, but broadly folks are amazing at convincing themselves they deserve any advantage they have and losing it is a horrific wrong.
0 replies
0 reposts
6 likes
Sure, the house is on fire, but we have a rule against spraying the hose in through the windows. It can really make a mess.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I don't know that I agree. I think the worry is less who gets in if Biden dies, it's the country rudderless with a Biden who is alive, but incapable. The concern isn't 1944 or 1968, it's 1920.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Finally got around to reading the concurrences in Loper Bright, and by God is Neil Gorsuch a smug little shit. The world needed none of his self-important little history of stare decisis, but there it is, all thirty-three pages of it.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
No, this is about the activities of fuck banks, where fucks are deposited. They eat pussy.
1 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
Trans people can't have rights because a man in England didn't like it when some lady suddenly started yelling at him about lesbian penises and her personal survey of britkink.
0 replies
0 reposts
4 likes
"Tom Cotton" sounds like a villain in one of the more didactic abolitionist novels.
0 replies
1 reposts
6 likes
The corollary is the total terror of white people at the idea of losing power because we have seen what we did with it and are terrified someone else will do that to us. "I tremble for my country when I reflect" and all that.
0 replies
0 reposts
5 likes
Jesus, Turley isn't here, is he? I am not ready for that day yet.
1 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
Isn't it weird that they keep doing it when it has become harder and harder for someone with their policy preferences to be elected nationwide? Their administrative law positions have changed accordingly, but "the president needs to be the king" hasn't.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
It is a miserable week for American constitutionalism and ordered liberty, and Joe Biden feels kind of like Jan Matthys riding out from Münster, but at least we don't have to rely on Keir fucking Starmer. Still better than the UK.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
I have never purchased a guillotine, and never expect to, but I am pretty sure that is the kind of thing you have to get custom.
1 replies
0 reposts
4 likes
I find it very annoying that the conservative movement wants me to believe Joe Biden is both a pants-pooping vegetable and an on-the-take criminal mastermind election stealer; and also, that being true, they solved it by making bribery and election-stealing legal. Can you try to make it coherent?
0 replies
1 reposts
1 likes
I am ready to try macrodosing at this point.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
The legacy of the Roberts Court: the President can't do anything to help people through any federal agency, but to balance that out, he gets to commit as many crimes as he wants.
These people are legal arsonists.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
There isn't even a "major questions" clause, but fuck it, what is text anyway?
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Nixon's chief national security sociopath was Jewish, maybe that counted for something.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
The judge I clerked for used to say about judicial elections, "merit selection sounds like a great idea until you get to the question of who decides who has merit." Haven't yet seen the elite selector I trust more than the electorate, as problematic as the electorate can be.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Still possible they say he has immunity. Or more likely has *some* immunity with a complicated balancing test to figure out exactly how much that will require an extraordinary amount of work from the trial court to apply. That could really keep this thing limping.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I think it will all be fine as long as people can effectively seek redress through the ordinary political process. Nobody has done anything to interfere with that, right?
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
The products are distinct, but we are simply expressing our opinion that your friends are undiscerning philistines.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Love the part where he says that a statute has one meaning that doesn't change from the moment it is passed and so it is suspect to change one's interpretation and new interpretations should not be credited. Bro, have you seen what your court has been up to for the past four years?
0 replies
1 reposts
2 likes
I don't believe that Biden is going anywhere, but if he does Harris is obviously and self evidently the next in line and any effort to knock her off will inevitably lead to a split between essential Democratic constituencies that hands the race to Trump. Seems quite obvious to me, at least.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Which is what is supposed to be happening in the Congress and the Executive. But it is not how the courts are supposed to work. Of course, the "conservative" legal movement doesn't care, because as noted they don't actually have any principles.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Is it really necessary that we have a Chevron doctrine? No, there are other ways to do things. But this just underlines the total lack of principle among "conservatives." It is about seizing and exercising power and no other things.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
The thing about Chevron is it was itself a piece of a transparent reactionary power grab. And it's repeal is a transparent reactionary power grab when the first one didn't work out as planned, because voters fucked it up by electing non-Republicans sometimes.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Gorsuch: "The law, in it's majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread" (irony in original ommitted).
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
They kind of came off like they were two retired dudes who hate each other arguing on the veranda of their country club in that golf exchange. And maybe they should go do that.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I think there are really only two things that could happen that can lead to ok outcomes for the country. One is Joe pulls it together and wins this and everyone gets another four years to regroup. The other is he dies quietly in his sleep in the next month. And I wouldn't put money on either.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I would be ok with it if they both quit politics today and hashed it out on the golf course instead. I would even pretend to be interested in the results of up to three golf matches.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
On balance, I am with the majority here. But I don't think it was an easy choice. The result we got is legally right but also will make future situations like this more costly and the cost will largely end up in the pockets of bankruptcy lawyers. And they already take too much.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Because it makes it possible for the deal to get done, and as the judge I clerked for liked to say about settlements, "all's well that ends." On the other hand, the BR court being able to reach out and force releases on people for entities not in bankruptcy seems nuts.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
How is it that our choices are a doddering old man and a fascist doddering old man?
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
The one on CBS?
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
As a result of a project I did in law school, I once read every SCOTUS opinion that cited Blackstone. There is no surer sign a conservative justice is about to do something wacky than a citation to the ol' Commentaries.
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes