So, let's talk about the Georgia Court of Appeals. Now that Judge McAfee has granted the certificate of immediate review for the disqualification of Fani Willis, what's the process? The application for an interlocutory appeal will be randomly assigned to a judge. From there...
it will be assigned to a staff attorney who will review the application and any supporting materials. That attorney will provide a memo providing a recommendation to the judge on whether the appeal should be granted or denied. The court has 45 days to act, so decisions are quick.
Court of Appeals Rule 30(a) provides factors that favor review. The most important one here will be whether there is a need to establish clear precedent to refine and guide the trial court. Defendants will have to argue that precedent is insufficient *and* this is a good vehicle.
The other key is this: is there *reversible error*? Even if there might be a need for some clarification around the law, the COA may not necessarily see the need to step in and reverse Judge McAfee if they think he essentially got it right. That may be the biggest hurdle for Ds.
Appeals are heard by a three-judge panel. Only one judge on a panel needs to agree to hear the appeal. All three are thus required to agree to deny it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's talk about this guy and judicial terms of office: William III. Making complicated history, short, William of Orange and his wife, Mary, were invited to rule as joint sovereigns after a nasty period of Jacobite rule in England and the Commonwealth. In 1689, big changes come.
The English Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament, establishing the foundation for the relationship between Parliament and the Crown in wake of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. There was some discussion about making judges secure from serving only at the pleasure of the King.
That doesn't make it into the Bill of Rights. But William III does offer to allow judges to hold their commissions during "Good Behaviour!" Parliament made this concept firm in the 1701 Act of Settlement.
I’d argue that “Good Behaviour” in Article III articulates a standard for impeachment that applies to judges that’s different than “high crimes and misdemeanors.” For example, federal judges have been removed for being drunks or making the judiciary look less than impartial.
Then, I’d pass two pieces of legislation that create term limits. I’d formally abolish every associate justice’s seat upon their death or retirement and create a new one with a term limit attached and with generous retirement benefits that fail to vest after 18 years of service.
Unlike other federal offices listed in the Constitution with term limits, federal judgeships are created and an abolished at the will of Congress. So, Congress must have the power to impose term limits on federal judges so long as they cannot be removed at will by the executive.
In the presidential immunity decision, Footnote 3, Justice Barrett's concurrence, and the dissent make much about immunity and bribery. Justice Sotomayor writes, "Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
The emphasis is misplaced, however. Mini 🧵
The majority's FN3 says you don't need evidence of an official act to prosecute a president for bribery. That's correct. The bribe itself is a crime-- whether the official act is completed or not. A quid pro quo agreement alone = convict. That tracks P&I Clause/ U.S. v. Brewster.
That really isn't the issue with yesterday's decision because there's a corrupt deal with an actor outside the Executive Branch. The real concern is using levers of power to do criminal things with other executive branch officials that boils down to a presidential-led conspiracy.
Good morning. It’s John Glover Roberts’s world and we’re just living in it.
This morning, at 10am, the Supreme Court will start to wind down its October 23 term. We have decision days announced today, tomorrow, and Friday.
A few procedural reminders:
We never know what decisions are coming and when. The Court announces rulings when the justices’ work is ready.
Decisions are handed down in reverse seniority by majority author. The longest serving justice goes last except the Chief. He’s the most senior by virtue of being CJ.
The Court typically distributes opinions in five minute increments. However, sometimes justices read from their opinions on the bench if they feel so moved. The Court will hold onto releasing opinions until that is finished.
Here's the thing with the Louisiana Ten Commandments in public schools law. Supreme Court precedent already said hanging them in schools violates the Constitution under the First Amendment in a case Stone v. Graham (1980). Kentucky was slammed by the justices for a similar law.
The Court summarily reversed the Kentucky courts, which held that Ten Commandment displays were constitutional *without* briefing or arguments. It was a 5-4 decision with Burger and Blackmun wanting full consideration. Only Stewart dissented on the merits. But here's the thing...
The decision rested on Lemon v. Kurtzman, a 1971 decision that laid out a test for Establishment Clause violations. Social conservatives did not like Lemon and its dead now. This gives the 5th Circuit or even the Supreme Court some room to throw cold water on Stone v. Graham.