#SCt There is very little actual law that applies. Basically that the POTUS has the authority to make the nomination & the Senate has the authority to advise & consent on the nomination. That’s it. See @AndrewCMcCarthy’s good article about this. /1
Beyond that, the process is entirely political. This is contemplated by the Constitution itself. The branches are supposed to work out power struggles between themselves. There is nothing wrong with that. Each branch has moves it can make. Making those moves is constitutional. /2
Elected officials serve during the entirety of their term. Suggesting they should voluntarily not exercise their power at some point during their term is just that - a suggestion. Suggestions can be rejected or ignored. And there’s nothing wrong with doing exactly that. /3
History about how this situation was handled before is interesting. It’s not binding in any way, but it does speak to our political norm. History shows that when faced with this situation in the past, the politicians have acted like politicians & done what favored their party./4
I see no reason why the Republicans shouldn’t nominate & confirm a justice as they have the authority & power to do so. There’s no rule saying you have to, or should, do things the way your opponents want you to do them if you don’t want to. Anyone saying otherwise is a child. /5
To the contrary, a significant reason imo to seat the justice now is the threats of violence & norm breaking (packing the courts, eliminating the Electoral College) from Dems if the Republicans do seat a justice. Threats of this type are unacceptable & must always be rejected. /6
Anyone who tries to coerce behavior by threatening violence or adverse retaliation is unfit for leadership & must be opposed vigorously. They cannot be placated. Rather they must be shown that such threats produce exactly what it is that they don’t want.Repeat until they learn./7
The only question I really have is whether the confirmation vote should be scheduled before or after Nov 3. I’m not sure yet which helps the election efforts of DJT & Republican Senators chances the most. It sounds like this is where McConnell is too for now. /8
It may not make much difference for right of center voters, but I am not sure that the same is true for left of center voters or independents. It bears thinking on for a bit & observing people over the next week or so. /9
A relevant consideration on this, however, is the AZ election. McSally holds the seat currently by appointment, not election. If she loses the election on Nov 3, the Dem (Kelly) can probably force being sworn in before Jan 3. That would change the Senate count to 52R-48D. /10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m late to the SCOTUS party today because we are moving today!
But I wanted to let you guys know that the decision today about the SEC is a huge win for liberty lovers. The case is Jarkesy.
The Court ruled the govt can’t impose fines on people for alleged fraud w/o a jury.
This decision is constitutional & therefore should directly affect all the other administrative agencies that have civil fraud penalty schemes too, like HUD, HHS & a bunch of others.
This has been one of the most common constitutional violations perpetrated by the federal govt.
As a young lawyer I was astonished these schemes were considered legal. It seemed obvious to me that they were unconstitutional.
The first one I worked on I was horrified because the SEC lawyers were so tyrannical- precisely because there was no check on them, judge or jury.
1st Amendment Praetorian (1AP) is/was a nonprofit organization that I represented (pro bono) prior to Jan6 & before the congressional J6 Committee. They provided security for speakers at various events before & after the 2020 election.
If you followed me then, you will know that I lodged formal written objections on behalf of 1AP to the J6 Committee because the Committee was trying to violate 1AP’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of association by demanding information & testimonies from this nonprofit.
I’ve now listened to Mark Levin’s argument about SCOTUS taking DJT’s case by writ. I agree it’s at least possible, tho as Mark agrees, rare. I said this in my Daily Wire interview this morning.
The statute he cites 28 USC 1651 is right but he’s not right that it can be done now.
SCOTUS’ writ power is “in aid of” its appellate jurisdiction. So, 1. there must be a federal issue in the case, which I think there is.
But 2. there must also be a judgment that the writ is seeking review from.
I see only 2 ways that there could be such a judgment:
1. A judgment in the criminal case - which only comes once the sentence is rendered - &/or the failure of Merchan or other judges to stay any sentence; &
Having gotten the actual jury instructions (thank you @KingMakerFT), it now comes clear what DJT was charged with/convicted of. Most of the reporting on this has been wrong because reporters don’t understand the law.
He was charged with 34 counts of violating NY penal section 175.10, a falsification of books & records offense that becomes a felony if you do it with intent to cover up a second crime. 👇🏻
Bragg’s office said & the judge clearly instructed the jury that the second crime was NY code section 17-152, a misdemeanor conspiracy statute prohibiting promoting the election of any person by “unlawful means.”
1. There are multiple, well founded grounds for actual reversal on appeal in the DJT NY case. Unlike in most ordinary cases where as a practical matter there are few.
2. The conviction does not preclude DJT from running for President or serving as President.
3. Any sentence will likely be stayed pending appeal under normal legal principles, if not by Merchan, then by a courts of appeals.
4. Thus, as a practical matter, this verdict very likely does not change anything between now & Nov.
Except there will be more legal maneuvering in this case & the others.
Free speech. In the coming years, I think we're going to see a lot of free speech cases. It is one of the most important aspects of our liberty based republic. We must defend it at all costs. Literally no other rights can be defended w/out it, at least not nonviolently.
It is vital that the Right of Center understand and insist upon having free speech. It is both a legal right against the govt (First Amendment) AND a social, civil value that makes our civilization work.
The First Amendment restricts the govt's power to suppress free speech. Most people know this in a general way - you can't be jailed for your views.
An increasingly important issue, however, involves the govt's speech/views, esp when it is in conflict with those of citizens.