Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
@chrisgeidner
Jan 23, 2022 • 7 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
OK, fine, let’s do this.
CATHERINE OF ARAGON:
“You must think that I'm crazy
You wanna replace me?”
ANNE BOLEYN:
“And who am I kidding
I was prête à manger.”
JANE SEYMOUR:
“You can build me up
You can tear me down
You can try but I'm unbreakable.”
ANNE OF CLEVES:
“Now I ain’t sayin’ I’m a gold digger
But check my prenup and go figure”
KATHERINE HOWARD:
“Playtime’s over.”
CATHERINE PARR:
“I disappear
We all disappear.”

• • •

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

Keep Current with Chris “Law Dork” Geidner

Chris “Law Dork” Geidner 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 @chrisgeidner

Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Nov 19
This is the shot of the night.

Schumer is filing cloture on several judicial nominations. Republicans are forcing them to go into executive session separately for each nomination. The Dems are just pushing ahead. Here was Schumer before the 10th vote, by my count, began. Schumer at the lectern, hands gripping over the top of it. TEXT: MR. SCHUMER: I MOVE TO PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDER CALENDAR 711.
By the Republicans refusing to give unanimous consent, the Dems are having to go through a series of procedural votes on each nominee.

They're passing on party-line votes, but the Republicans are literally just forcing them to take hours on this.
So far, cloture has been filed for:
- Amir H. Ali (D.D.C.)
- Sparkle L. Sooknanan (D.D.C.)
- Brian E. Murphy (D. Mass.)
- Anne Hwang (C.D. Calif.)
- Cynthia Dixon (C.D. Calif.)

This voting began at 6:32 pm, C-SPAN notes, after the vote on Kidd for the 11th Circuit. Senate floor: Partial Text: "THIS VOTE SERIES BEGAN AT 6:32pm ET"
Read 9 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Oct 20
BREAKING: The Fifth Circuit blocks an order from Judge Reed O'Connor that Media Matters turn over donor information to X Corp. in a lawsuit over the group's coverage of X, holding MM is likely to succeed in stopping disclosure.

More to come at Law Dork: lawdork.comX Corp., Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Media Matters for America; Eric Hananoki; Angelo Carusone, Defendants—Appellants. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CV-1175 ______________________________ Before Smith, Graves, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Media Matters, Inc., appeals the district court’s discovery order com- pelling it to disclose its donors’ information and communications. We grant Media Matters’s motion for stay pending appeal.
The panel had a far-right majority, too, with both Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, and Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a Trump appointee, on it — so, if O'Connor had a shot, it was here. Judge James Graves, an Obama appointee, was the third judge. Opinion: documentcloud.org/documents/2524…Because X Corp.’s discovery requests are disproportional to the needs of the case, Media Matters is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). IV. Because all factors support staying the discovery order pending appeal, Media Matters’s October 2, 2024, motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED. The district court’s September 27, 2024, order compelling production is STAYED pending further order of this court. Media Mat- ters’s motion for administrative stay is DISMISSED as moot. Nothing in this opinion is to be construed as a comment on the ultimate merits ...
Here's my big report at Law Dork from last month on O'Connor — troubling figure in today's federal judiciary, both on the substance of his rulings and the many direct and indirect conflicts that his extensive individual stock ownership has caused. lawdork.com/p/judge-overse…
Read 4 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Oct 16
I do think it's important to talk about this as it is. The GOP AGs are *asking* to amend their complaint in the existing lawsuit. It has some new claims, but most was already in their earlier complaint. And, DOJ has already said the entire case should be tossed.
They are doing this because they want to stay in front of Kacsmaryk — despite the fact that he is a Northern District of Texas judge and they are the Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho AGs. And despite the fact that SCOTUS already said the original plaintiffs lacked standing.
The AGs filed a motion for Kacsmaryk to accept their amended complaint on Friday, Oct. 11.

Before that, though, on Sept. 30, all the parties told Kacsmaryk what they thought should happen to the case now that it was back to him from SCOTUS. DOJ said it should be dismissed: 3. Defendants believe that no further proceedings are necessary or warranted in this case. The Supreme Court concluded that the original Plaintiffs “lack standing to challenge FDA’s actions,” which plainly requires dismissal of their Complaint—regardless of any attempt by Plaintiffs or the State Intervenors to amend or supplement their pleadings or add new parties. The Supreme Court’s decision highlighted legal defects in Plaintiffs’ standing, not simply a failure to carry their evidentiary burden. ... The proper course, therefore, is for this Court to immediately dismiss both existing Comp...
Read 5 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Sep 6
NEW: Alito continued, as of the end of 2023, to own shares of more than 25 companies' stocks.

Under our "financial disclosure" system, we learned of Alito's 12/31/23 stock holdings in a delayed report not filed until 8/13/24 and not posted until today.
documentcloud.org/documents/2510…
Image
As you might recall, Law Dork reported on two of Alito's stock trades earlier this year, when a "Periodic Transaction Report" revealed that he sold at least some of his stock in Anheuser-Busch and bought stock in Molson Coors on 8/14/23. lawdork.com/p/alito-bud-li…
In today's posted annual disclosure, we confirm that Alito sold *all* of his Anheuser-Busch stock that day when he replaced it with Molson Coors stock.
Read 4 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Aug 27
BREAKING: A superseding, post-immunity ruling indictment against Donald Trump has been issued in federal court in DC. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Image
Background: Here's my Law Dork report on the July Supreme Court immunity ruling. lawdork.com/p/robertss-maj…
Jack Smith added "private" to all of the co-conspirators, to highlight their clearly non-official roles — and got rid of Jeffrey Clark, the DOJ guy who was willing to be acting AG and pursue Trump's fake election fraud claims if Trump let him. a. Co-Conspirator 1, a private attorney whom the Defendant put in charge of his campaign's litigation efforts and who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign ("Campaign") attorneys would not. b. Co-Conspirator 2, a private attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certitication of the presidential election. c. Co-Conspirator 3, a private attorney who made unfounded claims of election frau...
Read 14 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Aug 27
NEWS: The ACLU has filed their brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of the plaintiffs challenging Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors.

Background at Law Dork: lawdork.com/p/scotus-takes…
Image
Here's the ACLU brief, calling on the Supreme Court to vacate the Sixth Circuit's ruling from last year holding that the Tennessee ban is likely constitutional: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/2…
If left uncorrected, the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning will have far-reaching consequences. It will effectively immunize all forms of government discrimination against transgender people from meaningful constitutional scrutiny. And it will force the families at the center of this case (and countless others like them) to lose the very medical care that has allowed their children to grow and thrive. This Court should vacate the Sixth Circuit’s misguided decision, reaffirm that all sex classifications receive heightened scrutiny, and remand for further proceedings or reverse the judgment.
DOJ's brief is also due today. I'll have more at Law Dork after it is in.

Subscribe now to get my report when it's live. There are free and paid options: lawdork.com/subscribe
Read 4 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

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

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!

Send Email!

:(