Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #FedSocSix
Most recents (3)
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case, Moore v. Harper, which could decide whether Democrats will ever be permitted to win another election.
The case involves the independent state legislature theory—the crackpot notion that the Elections Clause of the Constitution permits state legislatures to wield unchecked power in the way states run their federal elections.
The Elections Clause reads, in part, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”
As sweaty as these last few weeks have been, we’re focusing on reasons to be hopeful for the future of abortion access. So, for this week’s state’s spotlight, we’re holding up the example set by New York state.
On Monday, @GovKathyHochul passed a slew of legislation protecting abortion access, including a bill to study the “unmet needs” of pregnant people in the state. Sounds pretty good, right?
governor.ny.gov/news/governor-…
governor.ny.gov/news/governor-…
It is—mostly. The rest of the bills establish protections for abortion providers, pregnant people, and anyone who helps them, specifically from attacks from outside the state. The necessity of these actions is a somber reminder that no one is safe.
Oh, do we.
This week, #SCOTUS issued its decision in Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, which involved the ability of federal courts to step into state court criminal matters—which is how the criminal abortion cases of the future will be handled.
This week, #SCOTUS issued its decision in Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, which involved the ability of federal courts to step into state court criminal matters—which is how the criminal abortion cases of the future will be handled.
In a 6-3 ruling, as many decisions go these days, the #FedSocSix voted to uphold a lower court decision to deny defendants David Martinez Ramirez and Barry Lee Jones their right to effective counsel. Because fuck precedent, again.
In this decision, #SCOTUS ruled defendants could not present new evidence during post-conviction proceedings—evidence their lawyers hadn’t presented—since they hadn’t raised the claims in state court.
Basically, this:
Basically, this:
