THREADETTE: Something just dawned on me. You don't see any left-leaning anonymous (or named!) Twitter folks doing investigation of primary source documents, while several on the right do that & expose much otherwise missed. Left can rely on Fake News narratives pushed by MSM. 1/
2/ Knowing the legacy media won't research, you see lawyers putting out the source documents, such as @JohnWHuber@Techno_Fog and @15poundstogo and former intel folks such as @JennaNeen@MikayesFiona doing same. They spend hundreds of hours doing the work of Pulitzers.
3/ And @nick_weil team who puts together all of that work. These folks may well have saved @realDonaldTrump from the lies being peddled because they are in essence the best research team alternative media could ask for. I try to give credit where do, so here's a global 👏👏👏
4/4 And FTR: While I do know the actual identities and credentials of some of the above, my motto from day one on Twitter has been "distrust and verify." So I've always pulled the original source material, researched myself, and rendered my own conclusions. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD on broad thoughts from hearing: My "gut" is that SCOTUS will follow what I call the Kavanaugh approach to nationwide injunctions and hold that there are rules & those must be followed and those rules require class certification to provide relief beyond Plaintiffs. 1/
2/ Justice Kavanaugh (echoed by several other justices) stressed that exigent circumstances purportedly justifying nationwide injunctions don't exist because courts can grant TRO/Preliminary Injunctions for putative classes (meaning class action lawsuits not yet certified).
3/ Given that reality, Justice Kavanaugh suggested the argument that we need nationwide injunctions collapses. And as he stressed couple times, there is a rule & those rules must be followed. If you listened to the argument, Justice Kavanaugh's approach came off balanced & sane.
🧵on SCOTUS Nationwide Injunction re birthright citizenship case. Couple preliminary points: The argument is NOT about the merits of the birthright citizenship case. You may hear reference to the APA or the Administrative Procedure Act. This case does NOT concern APA. 1/
2/ Justices may reference APA b/c whether nationwide injunctions are appropriate under APA is a different issue (again not before the court). You'll also hear discussion of "organizational standing". Standing means ability to "stand" before court & ask for remedy b/c YOU are hurt
3/ Organizations have "standing" to sue if at least one member has standing to sue. But to have a remedy, Trump Administration maintains CASA, the organizational plaintiff, must establish which members are actually injured (by affidavit) & injunction is limited to them.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration pounds SCOTUS in new filing asking court to lift administrative injunction entered for non-parties in the Alien Enemies Act case. h/t @gvincentamore 1/
3/ You'll recall this is case where SCOTUS entered a midnight injunction barring Trump from removing any members of a "putative class" of tDa members. "Putative class" means there was NEVER a class action lawsuit "certified"--it was a wanna-be class action.
🚨🚨🚨HUGE development in Alien Enemies Act case that SCOTUS entered a stay for an entire class that had not been certified. District judge now denies class certification. 1/
3/ This decision is first case where court denied class certification. Additionally, now that the court has denied class certification, it changes status quo of case before SCOTUS.
🚨New filing in Boasberg Alien Enemies Act case. Amazing this must be said! 1/
2/ That excerpt was from a Declaration filed by Trump Administration in support of its Response in Opposition to New Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. This Response is interesting as it is first effort by Trump Administration to explain whether it is in constructive control