One of the insurrectionists who fomented rebellion against the United States government yesterday, John Eastman, is the chair of a Federalist Society practice group.
He's also a proud white supremacist who supports the deportation of millions of non-white American citizens.
I'll just go ahead and break it to you now: The Federalist Society will not condemn Eastman, let alone expel him from the organization. This is who they are.
I mean, the Federalist Society has repeatedly invited Eastman—a white supremacist—to promote the denaturalization and deportation of tens of millions of American citizens, most of them non-white. You think FedSoc will draw the line at an insurrection? slate.com/news-and-polit…
Federalist Society members who are unhappy with these tweets should consider directing their frustration at FedSoc leadership, which not only tolerates but elevates racists and insurrectionists. It's a private association and we live in a free country. Expel them or quit whining.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On the morning of Jan. 6, Ginni Thomas—wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—endorsed the protest demanding that Congress overturn the election, then sent her “LOVE” to the demonstrators, who violently overtook the Capitol several hours later. She has not posted since.
For background, Ginni Thomas is a conservative lobbyist and avid Trump supporter who campaigned for him. She also routinely spreads fringe conspiracy theories on Facebook. She recently posted: “No one, and I mean no one, has done more to harm America than the Democrats.”
Here, for instance, is a characteristic Ginni Thomas post. She has repeatedly (and falsely) warned that George Soros is funding a sweeping conspiracy against Donald Trump and the United States government.
Even after all this, defenders of the Electoral College will still claim that it provides more stability than a national popular vote for president.
Their mistake isn't just blind faith or motivated reasoning. It's total certainty that the Constitution cannot possibly be flawed.
The Electoral College was a slapdash compromise concocted by men who disagreed about how the country should pick a president. It promptly failed, which is why we have the 12th Amendment. But now we are told the Constitution is sacrosanct, so we are stuck with this broken system.
The 2020 election has illustrated another reason why the Electoral College is a bad system: It lets the loser defy the reality of his loss for 2+ months while exploiting the *many* cogs in this convoluted machine that eventually produces a president. A popular vote avoids that.
I will walk through the various statutes that the government cited to justify DACA; briefly explain how each statute bears on DACA; and provide a link to the text so that you, too, can see that the U.S. Code does not make "illegal alien" the proper term for DACA beneficiaries.
I will pause here to note that immigrants and their allies have long opposed the use of "illegal alien" when referring to DACA beneficiaries *for this reason.* I am not breaking any new ground, and I am surprised to learn that anyone familiar with DACA would make this error.
Good morning! At 10 a.m., the Supreme Court will issue opinion(s). SCOTUS scheduled this opinion day rather abruptly just yesterday. We have good reason to suspect it will do *something* in the census case given the tight timeline, but we'll find out soon enough.
Yesterday, SCOTUS declined to block a Kentucky order closing religious schools due to COVID—but only because the order is about to expire. There's no constitutional infirmity since Kentucky closed public schools, too, but Alito and Gorsuch were still mad.
BREAKING: By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court rules that the challenge to Trump's executive order excluding undocumented immigrants from the census count for congressional apportionment is premature, dismissing the case. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
It has become a talking point on the right that Republicans are no longer asking the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify Pennsylvania ballots. That is false. Republicans told SCOTUS it *can* resolve this case without nullifying ballots, but would still prefer to have them nullified. 1/
Republicans face a problem in this case: Throwing out late-arriving ballots won't change the outcome of the election, so Pennsylvania says the dispute is moot.
Republicans' latest brief seeks to avoid this problem by presenting two distinct theories. 2/
Theory #1: Republicans say that the Supreme Court can still provide relief by nullifying late-arriving ballots, even though its actions won't change the outcome of the Pennsylvania election, because counting those ballots still illegally dilutes lawful votes. 3/