Still annoyed by my loss in the 1988 high school class President election. Thinking of filing a cert petition.
Or at least setting up a GoFundMe or something, which will go to my personal bank account, or, if I decide to file, help defray my very high legal costs.
BTW, the responses to this so far are brilliant. Well done, everyone.
UPDATE: This high school election was in Wilmington, Delaware, back when Joe Biden was a Senator there. Remarkably, Hunter Biden had graduated from another high school IN THE SAME TOWN just months earlier. But of course the MSM won't report about these irregularities.
I'm sure Twitter is going to ban me for this thread, so see you all later on @parler_app. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you're a Supreme Court Justice, do you want to get rid of the Texas case without any comment or do you want to say something about this strange creature that has appeared before you?
My own instinct would be to get rid of it without comment, except I would worry that this is rewarding a political strategy you're likely to see again. (If a state AG can file crazy lawsuits for the base, being news story #1, and face no pushback, this will def happen again.)
Although it's fun to ponder the suits that might come in future years if the Court just quietly says no. Will Texas sue Delaware for not criminally prosecuting Hunter Biden for being a Chinese spy? The possibilities are endless.
Everyone wants to start with, okay, who will win? I think the telephonic arguments make that harder to tell than in person arguments. On the phone, it's more structured, so there's less discussion that gives you insights on that.
My sense is that there were only two Justices who seemed clearly disposed to one side: Both Sotomayor and Gorsuch seemed on Van Buren's side. I don't think anyone stood out as clearly on the government's side.
Here's my thread live-tweeting the Van Buren argument on the meaning of the CFAA.
Although C-SPAN is saying it starts at 11 eastern (now), that's wrong: It's not starting for at least 20 minutes, b/c the prior case was scheduled for 80 minutes, not 60 minutes. So stay tuned.
When Van Buren starts, probably in about 25 minutes, it will be available live here. c-span.org/video/?477429-…
For those unaware, Judge Bibas was appointed by Trump and is a longtime Federalist Society member. And he wrote this opinion exactly the way he would have if the plaintiff had represented any other candidate.
Cool 4th Am Q raised by this new op: If a judge reviews a warrant application, and thinks the facts described may violate the 4A, should she apply the 4A, including the exclusionary rule, to decide whether to sign the warrant?
In the ordinary case, an affidavit describing probable cause will state the facts supporting probable cause. If those facts amount to probable cause, the judge will sign the warrant.
If charges follow and the defense moves to suppress, the defense can argue that the fruits of the warrant should be suppressed because of a prior 4th Amendment violation.
The Q in this case is, can the judge make that call at the warrant application stage, too, and not sign?
When the govt obtains a warrant to track two suspects traveling in a car together using the GPS on one's phone, the other lacks standing to challenge the tracking. CA5, per Oldham.
The Court approaches the standing question by looking first at how the warrant was phrased. The warrant that the location of the phone was the "place to be searched," so that mostly governs. It was not D's phone, so he had no standing in that "place."
But I'm not sure how the drafting of the warrant can be relevant. 4A standing is about whether a person has rights to challenge a search that occurred, not how the govt drafted a warrant to justify the search that occurred.