Share this page!

Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture
Twitter logo
21 Sep, 5 tweets, 1 min read
Twitter--the place where someone is always here to tell you that you shouldn't speak.
Seriously, I find it astounding how many people repeatedly trumpet the idea that it is somehow *bad* to explain why there are substantive problems with an argument or a policy that you don't like.
A few months ago, one guy was incensed that I took the time to explain why there were substantive legal problems with an NRO column rather than just calling the person who wrote it a racist who operates in bad faith.
I get it that a lot of people are here on Twitter to connect with those who already agree with them and to revel in the echo chamber.

But some of us are here to talk about issues and get into the merits.
That so many people have convinced themselves that *other people* talking about the merits of important current events is somehow a problem is frankly pretty depressing.
But I suppose that's just more proof to that crowd that I'm naive or credulous. 🙄

• • •

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

Keep Current with Carissa Byrne Hessick

Carissa Byrne Hessick 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 @CBHessick

Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture
22 Sep
Fascinating story. What's especially interesting to me is that the policy involves whether to file gun charges in federal court, rather than DC Superior Court---and the decision is entirely in the prosecutors' hands because the US Atty handles both.
If this were a story about anywhere else in the country, the decision to file in federal, rather than state court, would also change your prosecutor. The US Atty's office would handle a federal case, while the local prosecutor would handle a state case.
The different prosecutor would matter because the US Attorney is appointed by the President. But the state prosecutor is usually elected by the community in the county or district, so there's local control.
In this story, you see a reference to local control issues: Image
Read 8 tweets
Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture
21 Sep
There is a lot to criticize about the Texas anti-abortion law, but trying to craft laws that subvert judicial review strikes me as something that people who call themselves "conservative" should not support.

Judicial review is a key component of our constitutional system.
As my friends on the right often remind me, ours is not a pure democracy. There are many pieces of the government that are specifically designed to make sure that majority opinion does not carry the day.

That is their response to complaints about the Senate and the filibuster.
Judicial review is one feature of our constitutional system that can (and does) frustrate majority rule. Congress and states can't pass blatantly unconstitutional laws even if a majority of Americans support those laws.
Read 8 tweets
Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture
19 Sep
People are more comfortable interfering in the reproductive lives of single women. I imagine that’s why early contraception cases featured married couples

Imagine telling a married woman that she should simply stop having sex with her husband if she doesn’t want (more) children
And in case you were wondering whether married women get abortions, the answer is yes. The rates are much lower than for single women, but still significant. statista.com/statistics/185…
And, to be clear, the fact that it seems more inappropriate to tell married women to stop having sex than it does to say the same thing to unmarried women does not reflect well on our social norms surrounding gender, sexual activity, or marriage.
Read 4 tweets
Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture
10 Sep
I have seen a lot of people talking about how the Biden vaccine order will backfire, resulting in fewer people getting vaccinated. Specifically, they claim it will turn those who are hesitant into staunch opponents. Let's talk about why these claims don't make a lot of sense....
Assuming people make decisions based on costs and benefits, requiring either vaccines or regular testing for many jobs will increase the costs associated with remaining unvaccinated. So if you believe people are rational actors, then this will lead to more vaccinations.
Of course, most people often act irrationally. So it’s understandable to think that not everyone will make the simple cost benefit analysis and get a vaccine.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean that requiring something will make it more objectionable.
Read 15 tweets
Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture
5 Sep
In modern America, federal courts don’t have the authority to create new federal crimes.
But the history is overwhelming that they possessed the power to create new crimes at the Founding.
Why does that matter for the debate over Bivens? Well…..
I have not done the historical work to know what authority federal judges possessed over civil causes of action. So I don’t know what the original understanding of federal court power would have been on this issue.
But twice in the past five years, I did the historical work to examine two oft-repeated claims about narrow federal court authority in criminal cases. And both of those claims were just wrong.
Federal (and state) courts possessed enormous power to shape the criminal law.
Read 8 tweets
Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture
2 Sep
Interesting twist in all of the discussions about standing and the new Texas abortion law.
It's true that states can set their own standing rules, but it looks like all of the new SCOTUS cases that restricted standing for statutory rights might apply in TX state court!
Why does this matter? Well the clever way that the Texas legislature sought to circumvent judicial review of its antiabortion law relies on private individuals to bring civil lawsuits against abortion providers, rather than state enforcement of the prohibition.
The US Supreme Court has really cracked down on laws that allow private individuals to bring lawsuits unless they were personally harmed.
Under the TX abortion law, it would be hard for most people to argue that *they* were harmed by *someone else* getting an abortion.
Read 7 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 @CBHessick has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @CBHessick!

Read all threads by @CBHessick

:(