Profile picture
, 4 tweets, 1 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
Serious question. If McConnell blocks requested witnesses, can what the Senate is abt to do be called a trial? Does it meet the Constitutional standard for one?

When lawyers argue in front of SCOTUS, w/no witnesses, it is called "arguments." Not a trial.

Is there an example in our legal system of something called a trial happening w/o witnesses? Isn't the whole point of a trial to hear from witnesses?

My question - can the House challenge the Constitutionality of McConnell's plan as something which fails to qualify as a trial?
Constitution requires a "trial" not "arguments" or debate. Trials have witnesses. Thus, McConnell has no choice other than to allow witnesses or he isn't meeting the Constitutional requirement to have a trial.
The Senate has conducted 15 Impeachment trials in its history. All have had witnesses.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Simon Rosenberg

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SimonWDC see all

Profile picture
Simon Rosenberg
@SimonWDC
So, this remarkable @FranklinFoer analysis got me thinking this am.....why oh why would Trump, even when Mueller was still active, dive back into the dark world of dirty Kremlin linked money, Ukraine, electoral cheating and do so in such a brazen manner?

An exploratory thread...
@FranklinFoer 2/No doubt part of it was the arrival of Barr, and his royalist views on the Presidency.
@FranklinFoer 3/Some of it was clearly his fear of Biden, a fear which perhaps was justified based on badly Biden is beating him in the polls right now.
Read 15 tweets
Profile picture
Simon Rosenberg
@SimonWDC
Been writing about how potentially explosive Parnas SDNY/FBI inquiry was for months now.

Here 👇is a thread I did in November which lays it all out - a new SDNY/FBI inquiry which could eventually snare Trump, Nunes, Pence, Pompeo, Rudy, Mulvaney....
Want to draw particular attention to the SDNY/FBI presser announcing the Parnas/Fruman arrests.

Read/listen to the words of SDNY and FBI about the seriousness of election law crimes - sure feels like Trump was the intended audience.
Important that we establish the SDNY/FBI Ukraine investigation is ongoing and hasn't been "Barred."

Pressure to shut it down not just coming fr Trump - but surely fr Nunes, Rudy, Pompeo, other senior WH aides w/criminal exposure. Maybe Barr himself too.
Read 8 tweets
Profile picture
Simon Rosenberg
@SimonWDC
1/In a piece I wrote a few weeks ago, I argued that Trump had softened his stance on Iran as part of a broader alignment of US policy with Russia's. ndn.org/blog/2019/12/l…
2/Bolton resigned over what he saw as Trump's growing appeasement of Iran. ndn.org/blog/2019/12/l…

Iran's recent aggression towards the US may have come from what they viewed as their partner Putin's influence over Trump.
3/Recall that @maggieNYT reported that part of what created the breach between Bolton and Trump was Bolton's unwillingness to defend the President's slavish attitude towards Putin.
Read 12 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Josh Blackman
@JoshMBlackman
1/ Thread on Knick: SG contended that an inverse condmenation claim arises under federal law for purposes of 1331. #scotus does not resolve that question bc takings claims can be brought under 1983
2/ At several junctures CJ Roberts writes that the Takings Clause should not be treated differently than other provisions of Bill of Rights. (J. Thomas has asserted that #scotus treats 2 Am as a second class right)
3/ In dissent, J. Kagan contends that the Takings Clause is "unique"
Read 14 tweets
Profile picture
Josh Blackman
@JoshMBlackman
Error in J. Thomas's dissent in Flowers. Strauder *did not* declare the West Virginia jury segregation law unconstitutional. This is a common myth about the case. Rather, #SCOTUS held that removal provision in Civil Rights Act was constitutional, and case should have been removed
Here is discussion of Strauder in Introduction to Constitutional Law w/ @RandyEBarnett - J. Thomas should correct this error. #SCOTUS
Thanks @michaelmorley11 for the note
Read 10 tweets
Profile picture
Cristian Farias
@cristianafarias
A major break in the Census litigation: Plaintiffs in the case accuse the Trump administration of concealing evidence of the real reason for a citizenship question.

To wit: A push to create a structural electoral advantage for “Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.”

Wow.
All along, the Trump administration has insisted that it needs citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.

The trial court in New York found those reasons “pretextual,” but this new evidence goes further: The data would be used for rank partisan advantage.
That’s a big revelation in this case, and as close to a smoking gun if this were a civil rights dispute.

But it isn’t. This is instead a dry, administrative law case. Because of limitations in law and doctrine, the evidence was largely limited to the “administrative record.”
Read 11 tweets
Profile picture
Josh Blackman
@JoshMBlackman
1/ Thread on Box v. Planned Parenthood (Indiana abortion case) supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor… #SCOTUS
2/ The petition in this case was filed in October 2018. It was initially distributed for the 1/4/19 conference. #SCOTUS then relisted it (by my count) 14 times.
supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…
3/ Ultimately, the Court reversed on question #1, and denied cert on question #2 supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/1… Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have denied review on both questions.
Read 21 tweets
Profile picture
JMHendersonSr❌
@ABustedBoomer
When I lived in the DC Metro and served as Senior Counsel for the @ACLJ, I attended many #SCOTUS arguments. @realDonaldTrump's recent action limiting funding for family planning services ...
requiring grantee organizations to segregate their abortion referral and abortion services from their Title X funded family planning services reminded me of one of my favorite moments in a #SCOTUS oral argument.
I have seen some of the leading religious liberties attorneys argue at the Court, including #DougLaycock and #MichaelMcConnell. I have also sat in on arguments in key cases on abortion, on free speech, and on federal election law.
Read 18 tweets
Profile picture
Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
1. Following up on last week's @WSJ op-ed, Prof. Steve Calabresi has now posted to @SSRN a nine-page "Opinion on the Constitutionality of Robert Mueller's Appointment":

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

His bottom line: It's unconstitutional.

This #thread explains why he's just wrong:
2. The key to understanding Calabresi's argument is to understand that it is actually two _different_ arguments that need to be addressed separately:

(i) that Mueller's _appointment_ violates the Appointments Clause; and
(
ii) that Mueller's _actions_ violate the Clause.
3. The first of these arguments is a claim that, based on the terms of the office, the Special Counsel is a "principal" officer under the Appointments Clause, and must therefore be nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable at will by the President.
Read 14 tweets

Trending hashtags

#Mob #NYPost #retailers #hampton #forbes #LondonMayor #PAMFAM #Wickes #london #Asda #HERO #SCOTUS #AIDS #Libdems #WeAreBetterThanThis4 #ForThePeople #Lloyds #theresamay #supermarkets #fraud #702FISA #Solicitors #Designs #LondonNews #HillingdonCouncil
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!