In 2016, the Justice Department described an "epidemic" of police officers shooting dogs, estimating that cops kill 25-30 dogs daily in the U.S. qz.com/870601/police-…
In some police forces, a small number of officers are responsible for the vast majority of dog shootings. A vital @cjciaramella investigation found that just *two* Detroit officers had shot more than 100 dogs. reason.com/2016/11/15/the…
Recently, officers in Prince George’s County invaded a woman's house and brutally tortured her dog for no reason.
The 8th Circuit panel in this case is quite conservative—all Republican nominees. It found that officers who shoot non-threatening dogs violate a "clearly established" right. Good to see courts moving away from broad deference toward dog-shooting cops. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/11/2…
P.S. You could've guessed this but police officers shoot racial minorities' dogs much more frequently than they shoot white people's dogs. slate.com/news-and-polit…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trump Judge Kyle Duncan tacks on a little advisory opinion suggesting that Congress couldn’t even impose an employer vaccine mandate through legislation. Love the very real and nonpartisan law coming out of the Fifth Circuit these days.
The majority also strongly suggests that a vaccine mandate *explicitly imposed by Congress through new legislation* would also be unconstitutional, so all this hand-waving about OSHA overreach is basically irrelevant.
The upshot is the Fifth Circuit’s opinion is not just “OSHA exceeded its powers,” it’s also “don’t you dare try to impose a vaccine mandate via statute, Congress, because we will block it in a heartbeat.” It’s an advisory opinion cutting off future avenues for vaccine mandates.
At the Federalist Society convention, Josh Hammer praises Trump Judge Kyle Duncan—sitting to his right—for an opinion that intentionally misgendered a trans litigant.
Duncan quips: “You and three out of five of my children are the only people in America who liked that opinion.”
In his opinion, Duncan declared that using trans litigants’ preferred pronouns would convey “tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position,” reflect “bias” toward trans people, and “enlist” the judiciary in a “quixotic undertaking.” slate.com/news-and-polit…
Now the Federalist Society has given Duncan an opportunity to lap up public praise of his anti-trans opinion, exactly the kind of thing you'd expect a nonpartisan debate club to do. Jokes about cruelty toward trans people are definitely very funny and apolitical.
Simply incredible to hear Thomas and Kavanaugh questioning the sincerity of a death row inmate’s religious beliefs, accusing him of “moving the goalposts,” after unquestioningly accepting the sincerity of religious beliefs against same-sex marriage, trans people, contraception …
Remember: It was TEXAS that repeatedly changed its execution rules, forcing Ramirez to file multiple claims to protect his religious liberty. But here Justice Thomas suggests that *Ramirez* tried to “game the system” and questioned the sincerity of his religious beliefs.
Justice Kavanaugh is very concerned about death row inmates “moving the goalposts” by raising religious liberty claims simply to delay their executions. Has Kavanaugh ever once before accused a religious plaintiff of raising a free exercise claim in bad faith? Ever?
Inexplicably, a huge number of people mix up Daylight Saving Time and Standard Time, and claim they want to abolish DST ***when they actually want to keep DST year-round.*** We need to abolish Standard Time, but we never will until you people finally learn which is which!
These are just the first four examples that came up, there are literally tens of thousands more. All these people actually want to KEEP Daylight Saving Time and ABOLISH Standard Time but we will never reach the promised land until we learn the terminology! Fight the real enemy!!!
A fascinating exchange in today’s Supreme Court arguments over New York’s concealed carry restrictions. Justice Kagan asks Paul Clement whether the state could ban concealed carry on the subway and university campuses, or at stadiums and large protests. He refuses to answer.
In a colloquy with New York’s solicitor general, Justice Alito expresses empathy for working class New Yorkers forced to brave the city’s allegedly crime-infested subways on the way home from work, asking: Don’t they need to carry concealed guns to protect themselves?
Justice Alito suggests that New York’s concealed carry restriction was passed with the intent to discriminate against racial minorities, Italians, and members of labor unions. If you are familiar with Alito’s jurisprudence on unions and racism, you will understand the irony here.
Chief Justice Roberts does not sound happy with Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, who resisted his (very good) hypothetical, leading Roberts to snipe: "My question is what we call a 'hypothetical.'" But remember that Roberts voted to block SB 8 from the start.
Here’s Chief Justice Roberts sounding uncharacteristically irritated by the Texas solicitor general’s defense of S.B. 8.
Incredible question from Justice Kagan that gets to the heart of the matter: “Some geniuses came up with a way to evade … the principle that states are not to nullify federal constitutional rights?”