Share this page!

Timothy Sandefur Profile picture
Twitter logo
Nov 9 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
My friend @ojdunford gives a little preview here of today’s arguments in the case challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act fedsoc.org/commentary/fed… #ICWA
Image
Just another hour till they let us in the building… Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with Timothy Sandefur

Timothy Sandefur 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 @TimothySandefur

Timothy Sandefur Profile picture
Nov 9
In fact, they are.
That is precisely what they are constitutionally bound to do: to administer a legal system premised on & inextricable from, the classical liberal principles of individual rights.
A straw man. While some forms of illiberalism shd indeed be & are criminalized (eg, violent confiscation of property—a crime regardless of political motive), it’s not at all contradictory to hold that illiberal shave the right to their opinion, but shouldn’t serve in office.
Read 6 tweets
Timothy Sandefur Profile picture
Sep 10
Any graduate of 8th grade civics can tell you why Chief Justice Roberts is right about this.
The Congress passes statutes. It does “not tell you what the law is”—i.e., interpret & apply statutes or determine whether they’re constitutional. More abstractly, statutes are not necessarily “the law,” bc the Constn says only the statutes that are “in pursuance of” the Const
are the “supreme law of the land”—which means statutes NOT in pursuance of the Const are NOT the supreme law of the land—are not law *at all.*

This is not hard. It’s basically the A, B, C or anyone wanting to understand how separation of powers or checks & balances works.
Read 12 tweets
Timothy Sandefur Profile picture
Aug 16
CON laws are laws that say you can’t start a business until you get permission from the existing businesses. Yes, such laws exist—& not only to they hurt consumers by barring competition, they also deprive entrepreneurs of their right to earn a living. They’re unconstitutional.
That’s why we’ve filed this brief asking the Supreme Court to take up a case from Kentucky where state laws won’t let two qualified health care workers from Nepal start a new business providing services to Nepali-speaking community. goldwaterinstitute.org/the-pursuit-of…
The right to earn a living has been unjustly neglected for almost a century now, relegated by judicial fiat to a category of “non-fundamental” rights that judges refuse to take seriously. Nothing in the Const’n justifies that & this right is the bedrock of the American Dream.
Read 5 tweets
Timothy Sandefur Profile picture
Jul 26
New Historians ignore anti-capitalist arguments by southern slavers newdiscourses.com/2021/06/histor…
Of course they do. It doesn’t fit the narrative, which prioritizes anti-capitalism over all other considerations & which therefore tries to blame capitalism for slavery & whatever else.
The reality is that pro-slavery ideology was America’s first anti-capitalist ideology & slavery’s champions were quite overt that they were offering an *alternative* to capitalism. George Fitzhugh rightly called slavery “the most perfect form of socialism.”
Read 10 tweets
Timothy Sandefur Profile picture
Jun 23
“We reiterate…When the 2d Amend’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Const’n presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
“We know of no other const’l right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the 1st Amend works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the 6th Amend works when it
comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self- defense.”
Read 4 tweets
Timothy Sandefur Profile picture
Jun 22
I don’t know who (other than the freaking President of the United States) needs to hear this, but: prices are INFORMATION SIGNALS. They’re a way of tracing how resources are used, or could be used. They’re a way of calculating trade offs.
Exxon gets gas from ppl who charge them for it. If Exxon can’t pay off that cost, it can’t get the gas to give us. Exxon’s suppliers, in turn, have their own bills to pay. If Exxon doesn’t pay them, they have to pay those bills some other way—say, by fishing—& we don’t get gas.
Prices aren’t just randomly set by evil greedy corporations at will. They have to get back their costs and pay their bills. And that means they have to set em high enough to recoup their costs & low enough that ppl don’t shop elsewhere. They aren’t just MAKING PRICES UP.
Read 5 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 on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(