Watching FoxNews post debate.
"Trump bullied himself across the stage. Changed no one's minds."
"Biden had no car-crash moment, so that's a win for him."
"Muddled, no memorable moment. So not a win for Trump."
All of the FoxNews ads are for Amy Coney Barrett.
And Biden ads as the fiscally responsible candidate.
And home security ads.
And big pharma ads for medicating mental illness.
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.
At @FedSoc National Student Convention, @NoahRFeldman is telling this audience that the formalist separation of powers & Scalia’s Morrison dissent are anti-originalist and dangerous…
And he’s crushing it. He is quoting Madison Federalist 47-51 and the audience is uncomfortable.
@FedSoc @Harvard_Law 3/ @NoahRFeldman says the Constitution’s original structure is functionalism and “checks and balance,” not formal “separation of powers.”
I haven’t put the point this strongly, but my research shows he’s more right than wrong.
And more historically correct than Scalia.