Share this page!

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Twitter logo
9 Dec, 7 tweets, 3 min read
The attorneys general of the following states just asked the Supreme Court to nullify millions of legal votes:

Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
West Virginia
It's not clear whether the 17 GOP state attorneys general who asked SCOTUS to throw out millions of votes realize that they are backing a lawsuit designed as pardon-bait for Texas' AG, who is under FBI investigation, not a legitimate legal challenge. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Beyond this, Republican state attorney general offices are increasingly dominated by up-and-coming Federalist Society members. These jobs are a springboard to higher office—some of Trump's worst FedSoc judges previously worked for a GOP AG.
The Federalist Society's best and brightest are asking the Supreme Court to nullify millions of legal votes to give Trump an unearned second term. It's appalling, unethical behavior. But it won't hurt their standing within FedSoc, or their chances of a future judicial nomination.
On another note: The GOP attorneys general asking SCOTUS to nullify millions of legal votes are members of RAGA (@RepublicanAGs). Here are the group's top donors in the first three quarters of 2020. documented.net/2020/11/raga-h…
Today's motion is a result of the conservative legal movement's refusal to condemn legal assaults on democracy. Its standard—"never criticize lawyers who represent clients seeking to subvert the republic"—brought us to a place where 17 AGs think it's OK to blow up an election.
A few thoughts here on the alarming radicalization of the conservative legal movement under Trump slate.com/news-and-polit… @Slate

• • •

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

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern 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 @mjs_DC

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
10 Dec
I would like to engage with this line of argument without any shade to Nate. I want to zero in on three pre-election cases in PA, NC, and MN.

Start with PA: Four Supreme Court justices made it quite clear that they wanted to throw out thousands of legal ballots in this state.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas tried to block a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on the basis of a truly radical constitutional theory. SCOPA extended the mail ballot deadline by three days; all four justices thought that was unconstitutional. slate.com/news-and-polit…
SCOTUS' conservatives spent the entire election season instructing federal courts not to intervene in state election processes. Then the PA Supreme Court ordered a modest expansion of voting rights, and four conservative justices tried to shut it down. Appalling hypocrisy.
Read 21 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
10 Dec
Good morning! The Supreme Court will issue opinions at 10 a.m. today.
The first decision is a unanimous ERISA pre-emption case (please don't make me describe the holding). Authored by Sotomayor, so we could get more decisions from any justice senior to her. Remember, opinions at released at 10 minute intervals these days. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
For those asking, we are not going to get any action on the deranged Texas lawsuit this morning. The defendant states will not reply until later today.
Read 14 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
7 Dec
At 10 a.m., the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Hungary v. Simon, which asks whether Hungarian Holocaust survivors can sue Hungary in U.S. courts for stealing their property. @SEHarringtonDC is arguing for the survivors. Listen here: c-span.org/video/?477434-…
Chief Justice Roberts grilling the Justice Department’s Benjamin Snyder is unexpectedly savage
Shorter Roberts: “Mr. Snyder, why is the federal government cowering behind dubious jurisdictional arguments to avoid explaining how this lawsuit will actually cause any friction with Hungary?”
Read 5 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
3 Dec
My read on the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision:

•4–3 to deny Trump's petition outright (Hagedorn + libs)
•6–1 to reject any remedy that involves tossing mail ballots

Only Rebecca Grassl Bradley left open the possibility to tossing ballots. democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Hagedorn's concurrence is really good. We are lucky that there is one sane Republican on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Here's the language in Chief Justice Roggensack's dissent essentially saying: I'm not going to throw out ballots, but I do think the elections board may have broken the law.

Ziegler joined Roggensack's dissent; Rebecca Grassl Bradley pointedly did not. democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Read 6 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
1 Dec
This morning at the Supreme Court, @neal_katyal defended two U.S. corporations accused of aiding and abetting child slavery overseas. The question is whether alleged victims can sue these corporations for overseas crimes in U.S. courts. I’ll post a few notable exchanges.
First: Clarence Thomas (!) asks Katyal, isn’t there an international norm allowing corporate liability for slavery?

Katyal says: Well, this is just *aiding and abetting* slavery, so it’s different.
Second, Kagan asks Katyal: Can a former child slave can sue ten slaveholders as individuals?

Katyal says yes.

Kagan asks: Can a former child slave sue those ten slaveholders if they form a corporation?

Katyal says no.

Kagan asks: How does that make any sense?!
Read 6 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
30 Nov
Here's a terrific preview of today's oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the latest census case. This time around, Trump is trying to exclude undocumented immigrants from the population count when apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Today's SCOTUS case could be catastrophic, stripping federal representation from states with large immigrant populations for the next ten years.

But it could also end with a fizzle, because Biden might be able to undo Trump's anti-immigrant policy. A lot of uncertainty here.
Today's case could fizzle out in other ways. SCOTUS could find a lack of standing now, then hear the case on the merits after Trump screws up apportionment. It's also worth noting that the govt does not know how many undocumented immigrants live here—the policy is unworkable!
Read 25 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 emails when @mjs_DC has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @mjs_DC!

Read all threads by @mjs_DC