Owning the libs by...legislatively overturning Flood v. Kuhn, which libs would...celebrate for strengthening labor rights and vindicating Curt Flood, who was the Kaepernick of his time. Well done.
Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall - the Court’s three most liberal members - dissented from Flood v. Kuhn. Repping flood was Arthur Goldberg, who had been one of the Warren Court’s big liberals.
Then there was this story from The Brethren: ImageImageImageImage
Though the whole Blackmun v. Marshall bit over including Black players in the majority’s paean to MLB’s special status may not have been true: law.gmu.edu/assets/files/p…
Anyway this Cruz-Lee thing is something AOC totally would have co-sponsored in the House had she not forsworn working with Cruz after his choices leading up to and on Jan 6
Oh and here’s the Flood v. Kuhn decision supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…
At the national level, too, it’s now “if a big business won’t support our minoritian project, we won’t prop up that big business’s unfair competitive advantage”

• • •

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

Keep Current with Mike Sacks

Mike Sacks 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!


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 @MikeSacksEsq

5 Apr
Thomas’s suggestion appears to have had its genesis in Richard Epstein’s comments in this FedSoc webinar from February fedsoc.org/events/is-comm…
This continues the left-right convergence on limiting Big Tech’s power. But this introduces a new difference among the many distinctions already dividing the two sides’ approaches...
Read 9 tweets
8 Mar
Every once in a SCOTUS justice picks one of their side's ideological issues over another, sometimes--but not always--to the benefit of the opposite side's preferred result.

Here's what the six conservative justices put at the top of their lists:
Roberts, with rare exception, puts his standing hawkishness over his substantive agenda. Proof: his first-ever solo dissent today was against an Evangelical Christian college student arguing a free speech violation; his vote in the Prop 8 case to the benefit of SSM in CA.
(Top of my head, Roberts rare exception assuming standing when he otherwise may not have: the Fisher affirmative action cases)
Read 12 tweets
21 Feb
The district court judge at the center of this story is 54. That alone means she’s not going to be a SCOTUS nominee, no matter what else she has going for her.
Influential members of Congress can pitch their preferred names all day long but sitting right by POTUS is a VPOTUS from a state where its highest court houses a 44yo black female justice who cut her teeth in the US Solicitor General’s office after clerking for Justice Stevens
And while Breyer could pull a Kennedy and put his thumb on the scales for his own former clerk, I think KBJ is more likely to get elevated to Garland or Tatel’s seat on the DC Cir than skip straight to SCOTUS
Read 7 tweets
13 Feb
Seems to me if nothing’s gonna get you the votes to convict, might as well get it over with and have Committees call witnesses as part of 1/6 investigation so Senate can pass COVID relief on schedule, then quickly get GOP to block voting rights bill to prompt filibuster nuke.
The trial was about seeing the impeachment process through to its finish. The evidence already presented was overwhelming. Most Republicans had already committed to “doesn’t matter, trial’s unconstitutional” as failsafe escape. Witnesses wouldn’t change that.
If the point is accountability, committee hearings can do that. Especially if they’re to factfind for the purposes of, say, a 14th Amendment Section 3 resolution against Trump, which would only require a majority vote:
Read 5 tweets
12 Feb
Note that this case only exists bc people got mad when SCOTUS OK’d execution of a Muslim without an imam by his side in a state that only provided Christian pastors so SCOTUS stopped a state with similar rules from executing a Buddhist, and so those states just barred all clergy
Read 9 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!