🔥🔥🔥THREADETTE: Yesterday something struck me as "off," but I only now had a chance now to relisten to the testimony to confirm. Check the 5:43:38 point from @RobGouveiaEsq video below & note Fani Willis volunteering she did NOT go to college with Robin Yeartie. Why would Fani make that point in response to a question of whether she knew Yeartie? 1/
2/ ...because Yeartie testified she met Willis when she was in college. (1:00:00 mark). Note Yeartie didn't say she went to college with Willis, just that they met when she Yeartie was in college. Willis making a point that they didn't go to college together only
3/ makes sense if Willis heard Yeartie's testimony. And note at 5:37:34 point Willis never said she didn't listen to anyone's testimony, only that I told you I was in my office pacing."
4/4 Think about it logically: Someone asks you do you know a person? What do you say, "yes." You don't say "yes, but they didn't go to Notre Dame, they went to Saint Mary's."
Post Script: And how in the hell could Willis have heard some of the argument but not any of the testimony? Willis volunteered she heard the argument because she wanted to say that the lawyer lied.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD on broad thoughts from hearing: My "gut" is that SCOTUS will follow what I call the Kavanaugh approach to nationwide injunctions and hold that there are rules & those must be followed and those rules require class certification to provide relief beyond Plaintiffs. 1/
2/ Justice Kavanaugh (echoed by several other justices) stressed that exigent circumstances purportedly justifying nationwide injunctions don't exist because courts can grant TRO/Preliminary Injunctions for putative classes (meaning class action lawsuits not yet certified).
3/ Given that reality, Justice Kavanaugh suggested the argument that we need nationwide injunctions collapses. And as he stressed couple times, there is a rule & those rules must be followed. If you listened to the argument, Justice Kavanaugh's approach came off balanced & sane.
🧵on SCOTUS Nationwide Injunction re birthright citizenship case. Couple preliminary points: The argument is NOT about the merits of the birthright citizenship case. You may hear reference to the APA or the Administrative Procedure Act. This case does NOT concern APA. 1/
2/ Justices may reference APA b/c whether nationwide injunctions are appropriate under APA is a different issue (again not before the court). You'll also hear discussion of "organizational standing". Standing means ability to "stand" before court & ask for remedy b/c YOU are hurt
3/ Organizations have "standing" to sue if at least one member has standing to sue. But to have a remedy, Trump Administration maintains CASA, the organizational plaintiff, must establish which members are actually injured (by affidavit) & injunction is limited to them.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration pounds SCOTUS in new filing asking court to lift administrative injunction entered for non-parties in the Alien Enemies Act case. h/t @gvincentamore 1/
3/ You'll recall this is case where SCOTUS entered a midnight injunction barring Trump from removing any members of a "putative class" of tDa members. "Putative class" means there was NEVER a class action lawsuit "certified"--it was a wanna-be class action.
🚨🚨🚨HUGE development in Alien Enemies Act case that SCOTUS entered a stay for an entire class that had not been certified. District judge now denies class certification. 1/
3/ This decision is first case where court denied class certification. Additionally, now that the court has denied class certification, it changes status quo of case before SCOTUS.
🚨New filing in Boasberg Alien Enemies Act case. Amazing this must be said! 1/
2/ That excerpt was from a Declaration filed by Trump Administration in support of its Response in Opposition to New Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. This Response is interesting as it is first effort by Trump Administration to explain whether it is in constructive control