🚨D.C. Circuit Judge Silberman just released a truly wild dissent calling on the Supreme Court to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, claiming NYT and WaPo are "virtually Democratic Party broadsheets," and accusing "big tech" of censoring conservatives. cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini…
Judge Silberman explicitly attacks Twitter for restricting the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story, complains that "there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News," and writes that "Democratic Party ideological control" of the media is "a threat to a viable democracy."
Silberman's final footnote: "The reasons for press bias are too complicated to address here. But they surely relate to bias at academic institutions." Doesn't elaborate. cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini…
Don't miss Judge Silberman's accusation that the Supreme Court has "committed itself to a constitutional Brezhnev doctrine" by adhering to precedent, accompanied by this footnote. cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini…
One aspect of this story I want to highlight: Silberman notoriously accused Elizabeth Warren of seeking "the desecration of Confederate graves," which is a lie that he almost certainly absorbed from his favorite network, Fox News! slate.com/news-and-polit…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a fantastic article on the sweeping consequences of the Washington Supreme Court's recent decision striking down the state law that had criminalized drug possession. It's great to see progressive state courts bending the arc of justice. courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/9…
It's a fascinating decision—the law punished individuals who *did not know and had no reason to know* they possessed drugs. The defendant alleged, quite plausibly, that she had borrowed a pair of jeans from a friend without realizing the coin pocket contained a tiny bag of drugs.
The Washington Supreme Court, which is the most diverse high court in the country, ruled that the state constitution's due process guarantee prohibited the legislature from criminalizing "innocent conduct—or, more accurately, nonconduct." So it struck down the entire statute.
SCOTUS takes no action on Mississippi's 15-week abortion yet. So, once again: The justices could be sitting on the case before months before agreeing to hear it (which happens occasionally), or they could've denied cert and someone is writing a dissent. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
SCOTUS takes up one new case, an interesting civil rights/4th Amendment dispute which I'll let SCOTUSblog summarize. scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
I'm not sure I'll ever get used to conservative proponents of the unitary executive theory defending agency independence and complaining about presidential termination of executive officials who wield executive powers. I thought these guys didn't believe in independent agencies!
Anyway, the EEOC is not an independent agency, though that's a common misconception. Neither its general counsel nor its commissioners are shielded by for-cause termination under any statute. Gustafson does not have a leg to stand on; this is all political posturing.
One could argue that the EEOC is "independent" in the sense that it is not under the direct control of the president, but that is because of tradition, not law. No statute bars the president from removing its general counsel or commissioners, for any reason. So this is silly.