Mike Sacks Profile picture
Sep 20, 2020 3 tweets 2 min read Read on X
As we watch people splitting hairs, switching sides, charging hypocrisy, remember that this is what it's always really been about, no less now than in 2016: latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/… Image
I know messaging matters in politics, but it's not my job to prop up messaging that disintegrates should roles be reversed, like 2016's #WeNeedNine and 2020's #HonorHerFinalWords (or whatever the hashtag will become), even if they're reacting to opponents' first-strike bad faith.
These SCOTUS fights, like most all politics, are all about power, whether to be used for good or ill for our democracy. And I'd prefer our politicians to be honest about that. Indeed, it's a journalist's job to cut through the workshopped messaging and demand they be.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Sacks

Mike Sacks 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!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MikeSacksEsq

May 16
Might as well get a thread started tracking Justice Jackson's emerging pro-democracy constitutional vision
Jackson came straight out of the blocks in October 2022 to give full weight to the proper understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Amendments as keys to our ensuring a robust multiracial democracy today:



Image
Image
Image
Image
(Here's the audio of that exchange)
Read 15 tweets
Apr 16
Justice Thomas just suggested J6, legally, is no different than any other violent attempt to disrupt official proceedings
Alito’s clearly for throwing out the obstruction charges against the J6 defendant here, too.
The liberals are all clearly with the government’s use of the obstruction statute against the J6 defendants.
Read 23 tweets
Dec 28, 2023
Here’s the Colorado Republican Party’s SCOTUS petition via its lawyers, who redacted their generally public contact info even though SCOTUS def won’t redact when it soon uploads the petition to the docket page. media.aclj.org/pdf/Colorado-R…


Image
QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Supreme Court of Colorado held that states possess authority, regardless of the lack of congressional authorization, to determine that a presidential candidate is disqualified under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified as an insurrectionist. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether the President falls within the list of officials subject to the disqualification provision of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment? 2. Whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing to the extent of all...
Sekulow making his grand return after repping Trump in his fight to keep his financial records from the Manhattan DA
That came after his defense of Trump during the second impeachment politico.com/news/magazine/…
Read 15 tweets
Dec 22, 2023
SCOTUS declines Jack Smith’s request to quickly resolve POTUS immunity issue, tells DC Circuit YOU FIRST supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…

Image
No noted dissents. Maybe libs trust that CADC will hand down its decision right after 1/9 oral args so to get whole resolved in time for 3/4 trial date?
Or maybe no sense of urgency anymore now that they’ll be deciding as late as June whether half of Smith’s charges against Trump can actually stand
Read 16 tweets
Dec 15, 2023
2nd Circuit, sitting en banc, finds that non-transgender female high school athletes have standing to sue Connecticut for Title IX sex discrimination over the state's inclusion of transgender female athletes in track and field competitions. ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isys…

Image
We do not consider whether Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims have any merit or whether they would be entitled to the relief that they seek as a matter of equity, but rather whether the district court has jurisdiction to hear their claims in the first instance. We conclude that it does, for the reasons advocated for both by Plaintiffs and by Intervenors. First, Plaintiffs have established Article III standing at this stage in the litigation. They have pled a concrete, particularized, and actual injury in fact that is plausibly redressable by monetary damages and an injunction ordering Defendants t...
CA2 says if the state made trans girls compete with boys, and "transgender girls alleged that such a policy discriminated against them on the basis of sex and deprived them of publicly recognized titles and placements, they too would have standing to bring a Title IX claim."
"On remand, the district court should assess in the first instance whether Plaintiffs’ complaint states a claim for a violation of Title IX."

IOW: now that you can sue, you have to prove you actually have a case.
Read 14 tweets
Sep 6, 2023
Translation: Sure we are openly defying a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling but we think Justice Kavanaugh will flip his vote if we come back at him with the exact argument he told us to make when he sided against us last time
Alabama’s gonna “raise that temporal argument” and hope Kavanaugh thinks that the Voting Rights Act no longer should authorize “race-based redistricting.”

Question is whether Kav left that loaded gun out for immediate use or for some years from now.
The three-judge district court opinion smacking down Alabama’s defiance contained a section on Kavanaugh’s concurrence to show why Alabama must lose but completely ignored the part where Kav wrote how Alabama could have won—and may yet still win—his vote s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2393…
"Fourth," Justice Kavanaugh emphasized, "Alabama asserts that § 2, as construed by Gingles to require race-based redistricting in certain circumstances, exceeds Congress's remedial or preventive authority," but "the constitutional argument presented by Alabama is not persuasive in light of the Court's precedents." Id. at 1519 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


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

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(