Share this page!

Max Kennerly Profile picture
Twitter logo
26 Nov, 4 tweets, 4 min read
For anyone wondering about the details in the new Supreme Court COVID case, I am tapping the sign. ImageImageImageImage
The AMA's amicus brief, which Sotomayor cited, is worth the read, not least to understand just how egregious the Supreme Court's decision was. Changing a bike tire doesn't mean 10+ people congregating indoors for a prolonged period while talking loudly: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2… ImageImageImageImage
I suspect the answer to #2 is: it's a PR stunt. Yesterday's opinion was "per curiam" and not "Justice Barrett" because they want to conceal how this decision was solely the result of shifting the partisan balance of the Court farther to the extreme right.
But there's no constitutional right to worship in the manner you prefer. Here's an explanation from Roberts, in an opinion joined by Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, and Gorsuch.

Unless the real principle is "we only protect some religions, not all religions."
Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly 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 @MaxKennerly

Max Kennerly Profile picture
28 Nov
As predicted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated that strange Commonwealth Court opinion that purported to issue an injunction against the certified election results. Another loss for the Trump Team, and a reminder to vote in state court elections! Image
If you're celebrating the PA Supreme Court decision, take note: PA Republicans are also pushing a ballot measure to amend PA's Constitution so that appellate courts, including its Supreme Court, is no longer elected state-wide, but instead via gerrymandered districts. /2
For a PA constitutional amendment to go on the ballot, it must pass the legislature twice. HB 196 passed this July. It'll pass again next year and then go on the ballot.

Obviously, control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has national implications. /3
Read 5 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
6 Nov
Here's the Dem vote margin for the 24 vulnerable Democratic House candidates compared to their GovTrack ideology score.

There's of course a million caveats here, but, in the aggregate: the more conservative their record in Congress, the worse they fared at the polls.
Yup. Six sponsors of Medicare-for-All won re-election in swing districts. SD, MT, and MS legalized marijuana. Florida raised its minimum wage. There are no majority-centrist districts; the districts are polarized, and the independents aren't centrists.
A thread with more receipts about how centrists did versus progressives in swing districts. Fact is, there are very few districts in which it makes electoral sense to please newspaper columnists and cable news hosts. Stand for something, fight for people.
Read 4 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
4 Nov
Folks, assume Biden loses Florida. Fine, whatever. If that happens, he still merely needs to win one of these beige states. Literally any one of them.
From the replies, it seems there are three personality types:

1) Biden will win this ("glass half-full")

2) you're assuming Biden wins Michigan and Wisconsin ("glass half-empty")

3) it's not beige, it's taupe / olive green / coffee ("who drank half my water?")

😁
... and BTW if you're maniacally refreshing Pennsylvania county results, you should know (a) Republicans blocked early counting of mail-in, it all just started today, it'll take awhile, and (b) some counties aren't even trying to count them until tomorrow: penncapital-star.com/election-2020/…
Read 5 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
29 Oct
This decision is ludicrous, as the dissent explains. The ballot receipt extension arose by consent decree on August 3, 2020. The plaintiffs, two Republicans who will be electors if Trump wins, dithered until September 22, when they filed this lawsuit. /1
Neither of the plaintiffs have standing. The lawsuit was filed too late, so laches apply. The 8th circuit decision is too late, so Purcell applies. The 8th circuit decision ignored Minnesota law, which specifically authorizes the Secretary of State to abide by court orders. /2
And the majority's interpretation of "legislature" in the Constitution's electors clause (1st pic) is wackadoodle nonsense, as explained by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pics, from the dissent.

The federal courts need to be completely overhauled.

/end
Read 5 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
20 Oct
Let's talk for a minute about the Pennsylvania election case.

It's a win for now, because a 4-4 tied SCOTUS vote means the lower court (here, PA Supreme) order stays intact.

But it's terrifying that 4 Justices thought otherwise, and might soon be joined by a 5th (Barrett). /1
Two basic, longstanding principles of law:

first, states control their own elections, though Congress can impose conditions;

second, state courts interpret their own state laws, including state constitutions.

That should've ended this case. Excerpt from PA Dems' brief.
/2
5 Republican Justices already blasted a hole in Congress's power to regulate elections in Shelby County v Holder, invalidating Congress's reauthorization of the VRA. Pics 1 & 2 from Ginsburg's dissent.

In the PA case, the Republicans' brief sang a different tune. (Pics 3 & 4) /3
Read 8 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
17 Oct
I was wondering if this was one of those "applying precedent leads us to this unfortunately result..." cases but, no, the reality is that Barrett plowed through state law and a jury's factual findings to cheat the plaintiff out of her fair compensation. /1
The plaintiff's appellate brief is available here: scribd.com/document/48048…

The facts are recounted on pages 16-21 of the PDF. They're awful. The guard repeatedly raped her at the prison.

The issue was whether the county had to pay for the $6,700,000 jury verdict. /2
Consistent with Wisconsin law, the jury had already heard ample evidence about whether the rapes were within the guard's "scope of employment," and they had decided the answer was yes. Excerpts from plaintiff's brief. /3
Read 9 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @MaxKennerly