From 1992 to 2000, Dems will win the popular vote in SEVEN out of EIGHT pres elections...
but nominate only 4 of 9 Justices (counting RBG's seat).
How? 1) Electoral college 2) One party flips the Court (1968-88)... 3) Partisan Justices time their retirements 4) Luck...
Thread.
2/
Let's start with how partisan Justices time their retirements, but this is a chance to say something to honor Justice Ginsburg.
I was troubled by how many people, in just the hours after Ginsburg's death, commented not on her life's work, but on her "vanity" in death.
3/ I understand the criticism, but first, the timing was disrespectful.
Honor her life in the first 2 days after dying, especially during her high holiday Rosh Hashanah.
Criticize her after she is buried.
But there was an irony and even a hypocrisy about some of this critique.
4/ I've tried to explain RBG's choice not to retire under Obama. The old filibuster/cloture rules were still in place, GOP was getting more obstructive.
Obama insiders floated more centrist judges' names (a message of moderation for 2012 and of compromise to the Senate).
5/ Some were from conservative West/Midwest states and had no record on women's rights & Roe. RBG has been around long enough to have the same questions I had: How would they vote on Roe?
(Many moderate jurists understandably doubt "subst've due process." I'd go w/ Equal P...)
6/ The smaller RBG retirement point:
If you thought there was more than a 50/50 chance your retirement might jeopardize the issue you care about the most, you'd tolerate a 50/50 bet on the 2016 election.
RBG made a reasonable choice, and I think it's unfair to label it "vain"...
7/ But here is the bigger point:
One of the main reasons the Supreme Court is now so stacked w/ conservatives despite losing presidential elections is that Justices often time their retirements for their party to win the presidency.
It's obviously partisan.
E.g., Anthony Kennedy.
8/ Both left & right Justices have timed their retirements in obviously partisan ways, revealing the deep partisanship of SCOTUS.
I get the frustration that conservative Justices have been better & luckier at it.
Seems hypocritical to be so harsh about RBG for not timing hers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 from @jdmortenson on Sai Prakash & Aditya Bamzai is devastating.
It has serious legal implications - and it is actually much worse.
Julian & I have asked questions for years privately & politely.
I regret that it has come to this.
I regret I didn't call them out 4 yrs ago. 1/
2/ I emailed Prakash questions about his use of sources in May 2020, early in Covid, in his article "New Light on the Decision of 1789," while Seila Law was pending.
He never addressed them. Instead, he & @adityabamzai repeated them & added new misuses: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
3/ I sent drafts to Prakash detailing my concerns.
In 2020, I co-organized a conference at Stanford & invited Prakash (Covid pushed to 2022).
He accepted, but when he asked if I would be debating past work, he cancelled w/ no explanation.
It gets worse. law.stanford.edu/events-archive…
This scare tactic - that the GOP will challenge any new nominee - is meritless nonsense, belied by Speaker Johnson's inability to specify any legal argument.
(See election law experts like @rickhasen in thread)
It tells you the GOP is desperate to keep Biden on the ballot. 1/
“I don’t put any credence into it,” says @RickHasen. “Biden is not the party’s nominee now, and states generally point to the major party’s nominee as the one whose name is on the ballot.”
I've read Judge Cannon's dismissal of the Mar-a-Lago case, ruling Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was invalid.
I am shocked but not surprised.
Clearly she was desperate to dismiss the Watergate case US v. Nixon & DC Cir. precedents in order to dismiss this case.
1/
2/ Cannon's decision is mostly statutory interpretation, not con law, ruling Smith's appointment does not have a statutory basis.
She doesn't rule directly on the constitutional issues, but she sneaks them in through "clear statement" rules, a now infamous Roberts Court move.
3/ I acknowledge the statutory basis for Smith's appointment is not textually obvious.
Judge Cannon actually does a good job explaining that the statutes that the DOJ relies on are not clear or leave questions.
But what do judges do when they have such doubts?
Trump v. US thread.
Opinion below.
Bottom line #1: I agree that a Jan 6 trial cannot happen before the election (That was almost certain when the Court took this case)
2/ The Court remanded the case.
Commentators are overlooking the Court's emphasis on "presumptive immunity," rather than "absolute immunity."
See Chief Justice Roberts's concise summary at p. 6 below.
This presumption still opens a big door for trial court evidentiary hearings.
3/ The Court holds "absolute immunity" for "core constitutional powers" (p. 6 above).
But what are those "core" powers?
p. 8: "Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his 'conclusive and preclusive' constitutional authority."
I'll be live-tweeting tonight's debate, to the extent that I can keep up and have the stomach for it.
🧵 1/ I note that Donald Trump has already lost the expectations pre-game, which may (or may not) be a big deal. politicalwire.com/2024/06/27/mor…
2/ "A @nytimes Siena College poll found 60% of registered voters thought Trump would perform 'very' or 'somewhat' well in tonight’s debate. Only 46% said the same of Biden.
Overall, nearly half of voters anticipated a poor showing for Biden."
Low expectations. Maybe good news?
@nytimes 3/ I'm sorry this matters, but Biden has a frog in his throat, and even when he cleared the frog, his voice is flat and monotone. His answer on inflation is fine substantively, but the vocals are really not good.
His answer was good.
But he sounds weak.
@RickPildes 3/ Barrett picked up on the Special Counsel's argument of the absurdity that crim statutes need a clear statement, if only a tiny number of statutes include (she said only three or so). Surely Congress did not mean for presidents to be broadly immune so generally from crim law.