Share this page!

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Twitter logo
14 Jan, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Days after invalidating Ohio's gerrymandering legislative maps, the Ohio Supreme Court strikes down the state's gerrymandered congressional maps, which gave Republicans a 12–3 advantage. supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0…
A lot to unpack here but I'm fascinated by this exchange over the dissenters' decision to issue a jointly authored opinion. They cite yesterday's joint dissent by SCOTUS' three liberals in the COVID mandate case. supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0…
I just want to reiterate how demented the Republican dissenters' position is in these cases ... The people of Ohio overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment restricting partisan gerrymandering and the dissenters say the Ohio Supreme Court can't enforce it. Lunacy.
Also, one of the dissenters is literally THE SON OF THE GOVERNOR ... who served on the redistricting commission ... and signed the gerrymanders into law ... and IS THE NAMED DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE ... and he still dissented. Just wild, lawless stuff. supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0…

• • •

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

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern 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 @mjs_DC

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
14 Jan
Awful, awful grant. This case gives SCOTUS a back door to effectively overturn Miranda by holding that there is no constitutional right to receive Miranda warnings. A truly bad omen.
This grant, too, is profoundly disturbing. The coach and his attorneys have brazenly lied about the facts of the case to tee up Supreme Court vehicle that will legalize a great deal of prayer in public schools. Looks like the justices took the bait.
Whatever you think about school prayer, this grant is bad news for anyone who thinks that lawyers should not lie to courts.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
13 Jan
BREAKING: The Supreme Court *blocks* Biden's vaccinate-or-test employer mandate by a 6–3 vote but *upholds* Biden's vaccine mandate for health care workers by a 5–4 vote. I will post the opinion in a moment.
Here is the opinion blocking Biden's vaccinate-or-test employer mandate by a 6–3 vote: supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…

Here is the opinion upholding Biden's vaccinate mandate for health care workers by a 5–4 vote, with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals: supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
In the decision blocking Biden's COVID employer mandate, the liberal justices issue a very rare joint dissent, authored by all three together.

"When we are wise, we know enough to defer on matters like this one. ... Today, we are not wise." supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Read 8 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
13 Jan
I'm not even going to link because it's too depressing but Federalist Society law professors are already feverishly crafting theories about how courts should eviscerate or invalidate this bill if it somehow passed. The Senate is a problem. The courts are a bigger problem.
It's fun/horrific to imagine the legal academy's reaction to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if today's Federalist Society infrastructure existed back then. You would have endless blog posts explaining why CoNgReSs JuSt CaN't EnD jIm CrOw couched in deviously neutral legalese.
And if today's pipeline from FedSoc to the federal judiciary existed in 1965, a lone federal judge would have issued a nationwide injunction against the entire Voting Rights Act, and we'd get Volokh Conspiracy posts about how anyone who disagreed was a #resistance hack.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
13 Jan
The Supreme Court's first and only opinion of the day is in a civil service pension case, Babcock v. Kijakazi. No vaccine decisions. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Babcock is an 8–1 decision by Barrett. Only Gorsuch dissents. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Gorsuch expresses "trepidation" about being "the only dissenter on this narrow question of statutory
interpretation."

"I would not ... curtail servicemembers’ Social Security benefits based primarily on implications extracted from other, separate 'bookkeeping' statutes."
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
10 Jan
A group of North Carolina voters have filed a lawsuit seeking to disqualify Madison Cawthorn from the 2022 ballot under the 14th Amendment, arguing that he supported an "insurrection or rebellion" by allegedly facilitating the attack on the Capitol.
freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/upl… Image
The 14th Amendment bars anyone who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the U.S. from holding a seat in Congress.

The voters challenging Cawthorn's candidacy are represented by, among others, a former Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, James G. Exum.
The challengers to Cawthorn's candidacy cite an opinion by then-Judge Neil Gorsuch holding if a candidate is ineligible for federal office, a state may prevent him from appearing on the ballot in the first place. casetext.com/case/hassan-v-… Image
Read 5 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
7 Jan
Kagan is such a strong communicator on vaccine mandates.

"This is a pandemic in which nearly a million people have died ... This is the policy that is most geared to stop all this. ... So whatever 'necessary' means, whatever 'grave' means, why isn't this necessary and grave?"
A blunt line of questioning from Sotomayor: "We are now having deaths at an unprecedented amount ... Why shouldn't the federal government—which has already decided to give OSHA the power to regulate workplace safety—have a national rule that will protect workers?"
Kagan: "Who decides? Should it be the agency full of expert policymakers, politically accountable to the president? ... Or courts can decide. Courts are not politically accountable.... Courts have no epidemiological expertise. Why in the world would courts decide this question?"
Read 12 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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @mjs_DC has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @mjs_DC!

Read all threads by @mjs_DC

:(