Q5 @jaydenhohnson: What is basis for GOP’s claim that if Bolton testifies, then issues of executive privilege must be decided by the courts? Is there precedent for Senate itself to vote on whether testimony is covered by executive privilege? Can the Chief Justice make a ruling?
@jaydenhohnson A5: (1/2) The Chief Justice can make a ruling, but is unlikely to. Instead, I would expect him to refer the question to the full senate to be resolved by a simple majority vote. -NK #AskACS
A5: 2/2 If he were to make a ruling, it could be appealed to the Senate and resolved by majority vote. During the Clinton impeachment, claims of privilege were raised and resolved during the Starr investigation, prior to the Senate trial. -NK #AskACS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ICYMI: “A More Perfect Union: The Future of Labor Law in a Post-COVID Economy” took place yesterday (1/7)
We need labor law reform. We need sector-wide solutions to address the multiple crises of the environment, the healthcare system, the economic crisis, said Nicole Berner of @SEIU (2/7)
Labor law has become an obstacle for workers to come together and countervail the power of corporations, said @sharblock (3/7)
In a new blog post on our expert forum, @MyConstitution’s David Gans explores California v. Texas, the latest attempt in the long-running effort by conservatives to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act bit.ly/3klf20x (1/5)
“Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh—who together with the Court’s three more liberal Justices could form a majority—repeatedly stated that it would be inappropriate to strike down the statute as a whole.” (2/5)
Gans argues that while the Roberts Court is deeply conservative, for now it seems unwilling to upend settled legal principles to strike down the ACA. (3/5)
From our first issue brief by Kristina Silja Bennard back in 2005 (!) on the confirmation hearings of #RBG and answering questions while maintaining judicial impartiality (1/21)
Bennard: The hearings for #RBG in 1993 provide a good example of how a nominee balances her obligation of impartiality with the need to shed light on her fundamental views (3/21)
.@espinsegall in the ACS Expert Forum Blog: Judge Amy Coney Barrett stated during her confirmation hearings that she's an originalist, which is meaningless as it relates to interpretation, but suggests that she'll consistently cast conservative votes acslaw.org/expertforum/ju… (1/9)
There are conservative, moderate and liberal judges, but there are no originalist judges, Professor Segall argues (2/9)
In the 1970s and 80s, originalists like Robert Bork were opposed to judges overturning state & federal law absent a clear inconsistency with constitutional text (3/9)
ACS President @russfeingold released this statement as the Senate begins hearings for #SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett (1/8):
The illegitimate plan to seat another extremely conservative #SCOTUS justice will allow the Right to achieve their ultimate goal: locking down a supermajority that could last for a generation (2/8)
By doing so, the Right will effectively steal the future of the younger generation – and generations to come. This generation will not be able to forge its own way or make manifest the promises in our Constitution (3/8)