Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #twitterlaw
Most recents (2)
I just... #twitterlaw is full of all these ARGUMENTS for why some liberal priority or other SHOULD BE constitutional, without understanding that FedSoc wants to control the courts so they can MAKE all these things UNconstitutional.
I just don't think people appreciate how craven and intellectually dishonest these people are. There are not PRINCIPLES. It's just "Republicans Win Always." There judges are there to DO A JOB, that JOB is to roll back rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ. THAT'S THE WHOLE GAME
If conservative jurists were guided by *principle* the GOP would be losing some of these Trump cases 9-0. If they respected *precedent* they wouldn't be trying to overturn Roe, AND OBERGEFELL.
1/ Thread: Why a sitting president can be indicted:
When the OLC opined in 2000 that a president cannot be indicted, one reason was that a statute of limitations could be "equitably tolled" (i.e., stop the clock).
I just can't find any precedents for criminal equitable tolling...
When the OLC opined in 2000 that a president cannot be indicted, one reason was that a statute of limitations could be "equitably tolled" (i.e., stop the clock).
I just can't find any precedents for criminal equitable tolling...
2/ @RDEliason, criminal law expert, observed this morning that he was unfamiliar with equitable tolling for criminal statutes of limitations. So I looked back at the OLC memo and the cases it cited. I can't find examples of criminal equitable tolling.
That's a problem.
That's a problem.
3/ If it is unclear whether courts ever equitably toll criminal statute of limitations in regular circumstances, why should we think that court would toll for a set of assumptions and non-indictments of a president? For non-actions by prosecutors?
