David Noll

mean things I say to myself @meantomyself.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:37 UTC

Fellas, this is the only woman who thinks a Cybertruck looks good

26 replies 59 reposts 343 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:38 UTC

Maybe there's something to the demands that law schools hire more MAGA professors. Half of lawyering is understanding the plasticity of law and normal people just can't grok the stupid shit that will get traction these days.

0 replies 0 reposts 21 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:29 UTC

I'm not going to lie, Tom. I am concerned.

0 replies 0 reposts 7 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:27 UTC

This is the only BlueSky starter pack you need!

3 replies 2 reposts 13 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:12 UTC

Gotcha. And yes, the House could of course impeach for, say, a murder that the pres. committed in his personal capacity.

0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:11 UTC

"We therefore hold that the petitions of Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Ms. Cheney, and Mr. Schiff must be dismissed." /end

0 replies 1 reposts 5 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:08 UTC

"Our constitution does not contemplate such flagrant interference with the duties of the people's democratically elected chief executive. As we recognized in Trump v United States, the president enjoys absolute immunity for actions within his core constitutional power." /3

1 replies 0 reposts 4 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:06 UTC

"No longer would the president be free to seek the candid advice of his closest advisors. Instead, every exercise of his constitutional powers would be undertaken with the certainty that it would be reexamined by a judge far removed from the exigencies of the office."

1 replies 0 reposts 4 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:04 UTC

"If prisoners in federal custody were allowed to challenge their detainment based on alleged political persecution, the effect on the President's duties to conduct foreign affairs, direct the military, and take care that the laws are faithfully executed would be immediate and calamitous." /1

1 replies 1 reposts 6 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 14:54 UTC

That's not quite the point Jacob is making. He's saying that the explicit provision for criminal trial following impeachment is meaningless if the president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, as Trump v US holds.

1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 14:51 UTC

Ha! And, you know, the status of thousands of agency interpretations that aren't before it. And the procedures Congress must use to exercise section 3. But I digress.

0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 14:44 UTC

I can't get over this one.

1 replies 1 reposts 10 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 14:39 UTC

imo the decision can't logically be limited notwithstanding the criminal prosecution language, but the court obviously hasn't decided the question yet.

1 replies 0 reposts 5 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 14:36 UTC

We were talking about this in some of the other replies. The reasoning of Harlow/Trump hinges on the effect of the president's awareness that sensitive discussions could be scrutinized, but as @adambonin.bsky.social points out Roberts introduces that with language referencing criminal prosecution.

1 replies 0 reposts 4 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 14:08 UTC

Core constitutional powers, according to Trump v. US

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 14:07 UTC

Revolutions tend not to be focused on planning for the morning after.

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 13:59 UTC

Nowhere. Unitary Executive Theory sees the president as a corporate executive and the government as his personal fiefdom.

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 13:57 UTC

They have been brought up in a milieu in which the illegitimacy of anything touched by the Warren or Burger courts is taken for granted. For them, torching a few decades of precedent is just a day at the office.

1 replies 1 reposts 12 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 13:51 UTC

Yeah, point taken.

0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 13:47 UTC

The court thinks that any judicial reexamination of presidential decision-making impermissibly threatens his Article II powers, but I'd certainly try to distinguish the case on this basis if I were filing a habeas petition.

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 13:43 UTC

Yes, of course.

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 13:42 UTC

That said, I'd certainly distinguish it on the basis you suggest if I were filing a habeas petition.

1 replies 0 reposts 5 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 13:41 UTC

The basis for the evidentiary bar is the chilling effect on presidential deliberations if the president knew his actions could be reexamined in court. That seems to sweep in all kinds of proceedings, and the court certainly thinks it applies to civil suits.

1 replies 0 reposts 6 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 13:38 UTC

yeah that is exactly how it reads

0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

David Noll @david.noll.org [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 13:35 UTC

The one silver lining in Trump v. US is that the majority opinion is so sloppy and imprecise that it will be simple to limit. But to do that, we need a new court. Until then, lower courts should aggressively adopt the narrowest readings possible.

3 replies 4 reposts 15 likes