Kagan continues to ruthlessly own Kavanaugh—here she mocks him for complaining "how unfair it is" that his "view has not prevailed here." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… 
Kagan: Kavanaugh merely reprises the government's "flawed argument," "if at a higher volume," "putting the rabbit in the hat" by "inserting the word that will (presto!) produce [his] reading."
supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The "presto!" is Kagan's addition, not mine—part of her extended metaphor framing Kavanaugh as an amateur magician who inadvertently reveals his trick to the audience before performing it.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1402994780993249281
Kagan acknowledges that her own previous opinion in Voisine v. U.S. included one slightly muddled sentence, noting that "sometimes we do not paraphrase complex statutory language as well as we might" and adding "mea culpa."
supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… h/t @LeahLitman!
supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… h/t @LeahLitman!
This one really resonates tbh
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1402997857502695436
I would just like to note that, at 38 pages—more than the plurality and concurrence combined—Kavanaugh's dissent is not only too whiny, but objectively too long. And 23 footnotes? Come on. Dude needs an editor. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Justice Kagan has Netflix supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Kagan going out of her way to burn Kavanaugh will never get old supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Kagan on Kavanaugh's "machinations": "Once again, statutory construction does not work that way: A court does not get to delete inconvenient language and insert convenient language to yield the court’s preferred meaning." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
