Post

More from @EdWhelanEPPC

Ed Whelan

@EdWhelanEPPC

May 30

Outstanding Wall Street Journal house editorial: Donald Trump vs. His Own Judges.
I'll start with this nugget: Leonard Leo had nothing to do with Trump's nomination of the Court of International Trade judge who ruled against him on tariffs. Trump's own trade representative recommended him. 1/

More from WSJ: "President Trump is expert at downplaying his failures, but attacking his own success is something new.... Mr. Trump is attacking the group, and especially the man in Leonard Leo, that were vital to his first-term success on judicial nominations. Mr. Leo helped Mr. Trump pull together his list of potential Supreme Court nominees during the 2016 presidential campaign. The list was crucial in reassuring conservative voters that he could be trusted on judges."
Trump understood back then that he wouldn't have been elected w/o Leonard Leo's assistance. 2/

So who spun Donald Trump into his idiotic rant? Very likely that it was deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, trying to deflect blame from himself and still "sore that Mr. Leo didn’t provide money through his political donor network for Mr. Miller’s legal group after the 2020 defeat." 3/

Read 6 tweets

Ed Whelan

@EdWhelanEPPC

Apr 28

Maine legislator Laurel Libby and several of her constituents have filed an emergency application in Supreme Court seeking relief against outrageous action by House speaker that bars her from voting because she has spoken out against male athletes participating in girls’ sports. 1/

At the Speaker’s direction, the Clerk of the House has not counted a single vote that Libby has tried to register, and won’t do so for rest of Libby’s term. Her constituents have no say on the thousands of bills that will come before the House. The Speaker has also barred Libby from speaking on any topic. 2/

The refusal to count a duly elected legislator’s vote is unprecedented in Maine and anywhere else in the country. But lower courts denied Libby and her constituents relief. 3/

Read 8 tweets

Ed Whelan

@EdWhelanEPPC

Apr 12

Lots of confusion in this @WSJopinion house editorial faulting Judge Xinis for seeking prompt info on Abrego Garcia. Perhaps worst is notion that retrieving deportee from prison contractor is complicated matter of "diplomacy." As @AndrewCMcCarthy has explained, Abrego Garcia is best understood as being in constructive American custody. nationalreview.com/2025/04/why-th…
wsj.com/opinion/kilmar…

But maybe even worse is notion that Trump administration, having unlawfully deported Abrego Garcia a month ago, should have five days to provide elementary information to Judge Xinis.

Contra @WSJopinion, I doubt very much that Chief Justice Roberts is frustrated with Judge Xinis for demanding prompt info from Trump administration. Every additional day that Abrego Garcia is stuck in Salvadoran prison compounds the illegality. Rule of Law judges understand that.

Read 6 tweets

Ed Whelan

@EdWhelanEPPC

Apr 7

Big 5-4 victory for Trump administration in Venezuela Alien Enemies Act case. (And not what I was expecting.) ACB and liberal justices in dissent.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…

4-page per curiam opinion (for five justices):
1. We construe the TROs as appealable injunctions.
2. Challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in habeas.
3. The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in D.C.
4. Detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard. ***"The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs."***

I might be wrong, but seems to me that per curiam's declaration that detainees "must be afforded [notice] within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs" rejects much more aggressive position that Administration has taken.

Read 7 tweets

Ed Whelan

@EdWhelanEPPC

Mar 6

New in Confirmation Tales: "Gang of 14 Agreement Preserves Senate Filibuster of Judicial Nominations"
“The nuclear option is gone for our lifetime,” crowed a “clearly euphoric” Democratic leader Harry Reid.
Eight years later, Reid himself would deploy the nuclear option, abolishing the filibuster of lower-court nominees and executive-branch nominees. 1/

In May 2005. the Senate prepared for a dramatic vote to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations.
The stakes were high. If Frist succeeded, the Senate, with its 55 Republicans, could promptly confirm the dozen or so appellate nominees who had been held in limbo. At least as importantly, Bush would have an easy path to getting any Supreme Court nominees confirmed in the 109th Congress (2005-2006). And any justices or appellate judges who had been hesitating to step down out of fear that their seats would remain vacant would no longer have that concern.
Conversely, the consequences for Bush and Senate Republicans would be severe if Frist lost the vote on filibuster abolition. Democrats would be emboldened to expand their filibuster campaign more broadly, and the filibuster threat would weigh heavily over a Supreme Court vacancy. Conservative activists would react with rage against Republican senators who sank the cause. 2/

On the evening of March 23, the members of the Gang of 14—described by the New York Times as “an assortment of moderates, mavericks, and senior statesmen” and led by Republican senators John Warner and John McCain—announced their agreement. The seven Republican signatories agreed to oppose Frist’s effort to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominees. That meant that Frist would have a maximum of 48 votes for his measure, so it was doomed.
In turn, the seven Democratic signatories agreed to support cloture on the nominations of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), and William Pryor (Eleventh Circuit). That meant that Frist would have the 60 votes he needed for cloture (with a couple to spare).
The signatories also agreed with respect to other nominations in the 109th Congress that nominees “should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances.” 3/

Read 6 tweets

Ed Whelan

@EdWhelanEPPC

Mar 5

By a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court has denied the Trump administration's request that it vacate a district-court order requiring disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. Order calls for district court to clarify what it is ordering government to do. 1/

Justice Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, vigorously dissents in 7-page opinion, says he is "stunned" that majority allows a "single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction [to] have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars." 2/

3/supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Ed Whelan

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @EdWhelanEPPC

Ed Whelan

Ed Whelan

Ed Whelan

Ed Whelan

Ed Whelan

Ed Whelan

Did Thread Reader help you today?

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

Send Email!