Share this page!

Jed Shugerman Profile picture
Twitter logo
11 Mar, 5 tweets, 4 min read
Am I really annotating Seila Law as I prepare to teach it next Monday?
And am I going to run out of room in the margins?
Yes I am.
cc. @jdmortenson @BlakeProf @LeahLitman @petermshane @vicnourse
Annotated Seila Law, p. 2.
cc: @Jane_C_Manners @LevMenand @andrewkent33
Annotated Seila Law, p. 3
(for p. 2: Did I really ask where in Article III is the "Duty to Micromanage" clause (a.k.a. The Dwight from the Office Clause)?
Yes I did.
Cf. Peter Strauss, "Overseer or Decider?"
Seila Law,p.4.
@jdmortenson @BlakeProf, I never noticed Roberts's inconsistent use of "vesting":
"Congress also vested the CFPB with potent enforcement powers."
I'm confused: Does "vest" connote magical exclusive/indefeasible power? Or is it (gasp!) just a simple delegation?
Annotated Seila Law, p. 11:
"Magical Vesting."
No basis for it in the text, context, or 18th C. English dictionaries.
See "Vesting" here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

• • •

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

Keep Current with Jed Shugerman

Jed Shugerman 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 @jedshug

Jed Shugerman Profile picture
25 Feb
“Vesting”: Text, Context, Dictionaries, and Unitary Problems
The Executive Vesting Clause is a pillar for the unitary theory of exclusive, indefeasible presidential power.
The word "vest" did not mean what they think it means.

Article posted on SSRN:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Abstract and table of contents here.
Below: Chart of dictionaries 1640 to 1846.

Special thanks to @jdmortenson @BlakeProf @Jane_C_Manners @LevMenand @petermshane @GillianMetzger2 @_John_Mikhail @MFlaherty17 @andrewkent33
Charts of dictionaries:
7 categories, from less to more support for unitary indefeasibility, L to R.
Last column relates to absolute power.
2d from the right relates to offices/official powers
Most relate to individual property rights and simple possession of real estate:
Read 6 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
13 Feb
Before people get upset about not calling witnesses:
I think Democrats understand the chances have increased significantly over the past 24 hours of Trump being criminally prosecuted for Jan. 6 (with witnesses, a real judge, and full legal process).
Plus the Georgia call.
I think the House managers have done a great job. The problem is the Senate “judge and jury,” and as we’ve seen, the GOP Senators are only interested in obstruction and partisan spin.
Let prosecutors investigate and then - in a real courtroom - get a clean shot at questions.
I had said earlier and often that Trump would not face prosecution: the speeches themselves were *not* criminal incitement.
But now: new questions of contacts before and during the insurrection arose. I think a criminal investigation is now likely, and an indictment is plausible.
Read 8 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
11 Feb
My originalism hypocrisy argument in @politico:

"The Senate GOP used Trump to fill the federal bench urgently with ostensible originalists. But when the rule of law is now on the line, they effectively voted 44 to 6 to disqualify originalism itself."
politico.com/news/magazine/…
2/ "Along with Trump, originalism was on trial this week in the Senate. The point of originalism—and I say this as an originalist legal scholar—is that our Constitution is not supposed to be a wordy document narrowly fixing every point of law...
3/ "but a framework that depends upon historical context to find meaning and purpose... Contradicting the arguments they conveniently invoke for judicial appointments, the vast majority of Republican Senators this week ignored the whole principle of originalism.
Read 4 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
9 Feb
I'm sure it is just a coincidence that, as far as I was counting, ALL of the members of Congress featured in Trump's defense video, villifying them for calling for impeachment in 2017-18...

were women, people of color, or Jews.
Fact-check: True.
Shame on David Schoen for selling us out.
No accident, brown & women's faces were shown for the longest time.

Here are the targets of Trump's video:
@AOC @ewarren @RepRaskin @RepCohen @RepMaxineWaters @algreen @JulianCastro @IlhanMN @RepRashida @keithellison
Some of the white non-Jewish male members who called for impeachment in 2017-18 who coincidentally aren't featured in the video:
@RepSwalwell @BetoORourke @davidcicilline

How about this: If you are a lawyer defending a racist president for inciting insurrection, don't do this.
Read 4 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
8 Feb
March 2018:

“@ManhattanDA Vance wasted no time indicting Manafort on 16 state counts...
Most of the charges seem to violate New York’s double jeopardy law...
A damaging setback for New York’s civil liberties and the rule of law.”
slate.com/news-and-polit…
Shot 👆
Ambulance chaser 👇
Cy Vance has been a disaster for the rule of law, underprosecuting the Trumps and corruptly enabling Trump’s crimes.
Then partisan-hack abusing his power:

nytimes.com/2021/02/08/nyr…
Sorry, March 2019:
(Thanks to @JeremyStahl for strong edits)
slate.com/news-and-polit…
Read 4 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
19 Jan
This is too alarmist, @Lawrence.
Pardons don’t have to be announced or publicized by noon tomorrow, but like all official acts, they have to be documented by noon, and Congress can subpoena all pardons on Thursday to get a final record.
As an example of the Framers’ concern about executive secrecy, the Secret Treaty of Dover between Charles II and Louis XIV was suspected and scandalously discovered years later in 1770s and condemned by the Framers during the impeachment debate on July 20, 1787.
Congress can issue subpoena for all White House pardon records and to private citizen Trump himself. If they have no official record or provide no official record of such a pardon, then it doesn’t officially exist.
Read 6 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 @jedshug has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @jedshug!

Read all threads by @jedshug