Despite serious constitutional concerns, the fed government has conducted its first execution in 17 years, after #SCOTUS opted to allow the fed govt to move forward in a hasty 5-4 decision earlier this morning. 1/4
As Justice Sotomayor observed in her dissent, “the Court accepts the Government’s artificial claim of urgency to truncate ordinary procedures of judicial review. This sets a dangerous precedent.” 2/4
Sotomayor lamented that the Court’s decision paved the way for “death-sentenced inmates to be executed before any court can properly consider whether their executions are unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.” 3/4
The resumption of federal executions is a national tragedy. It doesn’t have to be this way. Sentencing someone to death is a choice, a conscious decision to end someone’s life in the government’s name. This is a cruel and immoral policy from a bygone era. 4/4
• • •
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)