Post

More from @McAdooGordon

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

@McAdooGordon

Jul 8

So you understand:

1. No tax money goes to Planned Parenthood for abortions directly. That has been prohibited by law for many years.

2. Congress does not “fund” Planned Parenthood directly for the other services it provides either.

3. Rather, Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid payments for non-abortion services rendered to people who are on Medicaid, just like other medical care providers.

4. Planned Parenthood in addition to abortions provides the following services:

birth control, STD testing and treatment, pregnancy testing and options counseling, emergency contraception, “gender-affirming” care, Pap tests, breast exams, and vaccinations.

5. The “funding” cut off by the OBBB are these payments thru Medicaid.

So the issue in the litigation is going to be whether Congress can constitutionally cut Planned Parenthood out of the Medicaid Program in the way that the OBBB does it.

The same kind of problem would arise if a different Congress passed a law saying religious medical providers who are in the Medicaid program could not receive Medicaid payments for medical services they provide because they also provide religious instruction or counseling to their patients.

Medicaid is an entitlement program created by the Congress. The payments it makes are not like grants or other forms of federal funding, which the Congress controls directly.

When Congress spends money on something that is available to the public generally as an entitlement, you run into the questions of whether it can then cut some people out, which can turn on the reason for the cut, because the Constitution prevents the Congress from making laws that violate certain rights, including religion and viewpoint.

So there’s a genuine issue in this Planned Parenthood case. But it requires a lot more analysis than the Mass. district judge has given it.

Read 4 tweets

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

@McAdooGordon

Jun 19

DHS needs to circulate a memo to all state governments to make all their state officials & judges aware that ICE officers DO NOT need a “judicial” warrant to arrest immigrants in a public place. An immigration warrant issued by ICE is all that is required under federal law.

If state officials interfere with arrests based on those warrants, they are unlawfully interfering with federally agents under 18 USC 111. If they do so with “physical contact” with the agent, it’s a felony.

(These non-judicial warrants don’t permit entry into a home.)

So, for example, in the Brad Lander situation, he’s wrong that the agents have to show a judicial warrant to make the arrest; & holding on to the arrestee to prevent the agents from making it is a federal offense, at least a misdemeanor.

Read 13 tweets

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

@McAdooGordon

Mar 19

I don’t know who needs to be reminded of this (cough, cough), but you are not bound to obey an unlawful order. And it’s not contemptuous to refuse to obey an unlawful order either.

You run the risk that you’re wrong, of course, & that a higher court will therefore say you ARE in violation of a lawful order & impose consequences.

But, it’s still true that you don’t have to obey an order that is unlawful while the courts take their time figuring it out.

To clarify, I’m talking about orders that are unlawful because the court doesn’t have the authority to issue them, not unlawful because the court ruled the wrong way.

Read 4 tweets

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

@McAdooGordon

Jan 21

https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/1881515033563455659

This was the only just outcome. These people were ALL over-charged, over-prosecuted, had unconstitutional conditions imposed on them when released pre-trial, had the most draconian & unlawful pleas imposed on them, & were over-sentenced.

https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/1881515033563455659

Not even the cases where there was bad behavior by defendants were handled appropriately so as to justify the punishments handed out.

Just as electing Trump was the only way to counteract the lawfare by Democrats, pardoning & releasing all these defendants was the only way to set right the completely disproportionate & inappropriate response of the “justice system” to Jan 6.

Read 4 tweets

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

@McAdooGordon

Jan 10

DJT has appeared at the sentencing with Todd Blanche, seated in front of an American flag.

Per CNN

Bragg’s office has asked for the unconditional discharge sentence.

Now the prosecutor is doing what they always do - whining about how a defendant who went to trial because he thinks he’s not guilty hasn’t shown remorse after being convicted by a jury. 🙄

Read 18 tweets

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

@McAdooGordon

Jan 9

So you know. I would never counsel a client to not show up for a court hearing, especially a sentencing.

However, as I said last night on Spaces, if it were me - if I were the client- in this situation, I would absolutely not attend the sentencing hearing tomorrow.

I would instead have my lawyer put out a statement explaining that I view the hearing as ultra vires so I’m not attending.

The lawyers themselves are another matter. They must attend a duly scheduled court session or risk being found in contempt & being referred to Bar Counsel for discipline.

So I’d expect DJT’s lawyers at least to show.

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @McAdooGordon

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!