🚨🚨🚨 note that Justice Breyer would be one seat away from Neil Gorsuch, who insists on being maskless at the Supreme Court.

(Justice Sotomayor, who sits in between them -- i.e., next to Breyer and Gorsuch -- has been electing to participate remotely.)
Justice Breyer is 83, and Justice Sotomayor has juvenile diabetes.

And Neil Gorsuch is ..., well, you know.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Leah Litman

Leah Litman 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 @LeahLitman

10 Jan
(Justice Gorsuch sits next to Justice Sotomayor on the bench):
Justice Thomas and Justice Alito also reportedly took off their masks after they entered the courtroom on Friday, as we discussed on the @StrictScrutiny_ episode about arguments in the test/vax cases. strictscrutinypodcast.com/podcast/no-law…
Read 4 tweets
7 Jan
Argument starts in the OSHA case! The Chief says Justice Sotomayor is participating remotely as is Ohio SG Flowers (who tested positive for COVID-19, but the Chief doesn't say that).
Scott Keller -- former Texas SG -- starts (he is arguing for NFIB).
Justice Thomas asks how to determine whether a rule/requirement is necessary. And asks Keller to explain why necessary doesn't mean what McCulloch said necessary (in the Constitution) meant -- i.e., not actually necessary.
Read 71 tweets
7 Jan
did one of the lawyers test positive?

SCOTUS has a rule that lawyers must take a covid test before arguing ... much like the testing rule that OSHA is trying to impose on other workplaces, & that the Court may very well invalidate!
update: the answer is yes. one of the lawyers challenging the federal government's attempt to regulate the spread of COVID-19 (by testing and/or vaccinating) contracted COVID-19....

you really cannot make this stuff up.
Read 5 tweets
18 Dec 21
just an ~incredible~ accomplishment that's worth a moment of celebration.
of course I'm greedy and I want more.

but I appreciate the effort the admin has put into finding great nominees and then fighting for them.

keep fighting for the courts in 2022!!!
Read 6 tweets
8 Dec 21
Here we go with Shinn v. Ramirez
"that no factfinder could have found the prisoner guilty is NOT ENOUGH," Arizona lawyer says, emphasizing that yes, indeed, their position can result in the execution of innocent people.
Thomas: 'Martinez procedural default exception would be worthless if litigants could not introduce evidence to support their claim that trial counsel was ineffective.' Please explain?
Read 49 tweets
1 Dec 21
MS SG opening statement: "Roe & Casey haunt our country"
MS also refers -- as MS did in the brief -- to fetuses as "unborn girls" to suggest they care about women & are the real feminists here.
Justice Thomas (first question): You focus on the right to an abortion. Does it make a difference if we focus on privacy/autonomy vs. abortion?

(This gets at the fact that the right to privacy protects contraception & many other things besides abortion.)
Read 89 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

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(