Sarah Isgur Profile picture
Apr 8 6 tweets 1 min read Read on X
The TDA ruling by SCOTUS was a *total loss* for the admin—and not just on process. And it was a Marbury-esque move by the Chief Justice. 🧵
The whole purpose of invoking the Alien Enemies Act was to do expedited removals without having to go through the INA administrative hearings.
9 justices said the AEA still requires some process. 4 said it requires process under the APA. 5 said it requires process under habeas corpus.
But guess what? Habeas corpus means going into federal court for every individual and all the process due—which is a lot more than the administrative process under the INA.
So the Court just said: You’re welcome to try to use the AEA (which may or may not be lawful)…but we’ve taken away your reason for wanting to use it in the first place. Thanks for playing!
In the meantime, the admin gets to claim a victory and the Court escapes unscathed. A win for the institution and the aliens who were already being detained under the INA are in no worse shape than before.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Sarah Isgur

Sarah Isgur 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 @whignewtons

Mar 27
Overheard in Georgetown outside a Michelin star restaurant : “I’m a member of the new administration and the fact you don’t offer takeout food seems like proof that you’re biased against us!” [I’m not joking…this really just happened]
“Not even a salad? There are restaurants on Park Ave that offer take out. I’m from New York!”
“It’s just so DC. I don’t want to be ugly, but it’s so DC—unnecessary and inconvenient.”
Read 4 tweets
Mar 11
A 🧵 on the future of Harvard's Federalist Society. Elections tomorrow will be run using "natural law," which they say "may mean, in some circumstances, reference to 'the law written in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not.'" Image
Image
Yes, this is for a student group's election code, and as you might suspect, it reads like an immature law student. There's "notice and comment" on their election code as well as "administrative opinions" on who may vote. Image
Image
Importantly, these students hate progressives, sure, but they are resentful of conservatives at least as much. The footnotes are littered with a lot of Thomas Aquinas and Adrain Vermeule as you might imagine.
Read 8 tweets
Sep 11, 2024
I’m going to put some of the best sept 11 longforms in this thread as a way of remembering what we lost and why. Feel free to respond with your own.

To start, a haunting look at one of the most famous pictures from that morning. esquire.com/news-politics/…
A glimpse at what we lost that day: newyorker.com/magazine/2002/…
What it felt like to live next door when we didn’t know how many planes were coming, whether they’d rigged the bridges to blow, if they were trying to get everyone outside for another attack. hotair.com/allahpundit/20…
Read 4 tweets
Jul 18, 2024
Everyone is using the term “Republican Party” interchangeably to refer to two totally different political parties.

1) Goldwater-2012: project American strength abroad, abortion/guns, limited govt
2) Populist now: isolationism, anti-woke, grow govt safety net
When Trump defeated the GOP(1) in 2016 primary, it was like a new marriage. Folks assumed there was a decent chance of divorce. The Vance pick is like when the couple has a baby and you realize they’re actually serious about this.
Every other VP option (Rubio, Burgam, Haley, Stefanik) came up through GOP(1) institutions. Vance was the only guy to be a pure creation of—and owe his political success to—GOP(2).
Read 8 tweets
Jul 17, 2024
But this is the problem: if Dems become convinced they’re going to lose either way—with either Biden or Harris, Dems are way better off losing with Biden. Here’s why:
If Biden loses, people will blame
Biden and his team. If the elites of the party/pundit class pressure Biden to step aside and Harris loses, the 1/3 of the party that still wants Biden as the nominee, will blame them and hold to the counterfactual that Biden would have won.
So it doesn’t matter that 60+% want to replace Biden. It will rip apart the party MORE if Harris loses, which isn’t a certainty but it’s at best a coin flip. So if you’re a Dem operative…
Read 6 tweets
Jul 9, 2024
The next constitution crisis. AKA another problem w Joe Biden as the Dem nominee....a 🧵

The 12th Amendment says that the presidency goes to the person who wins the majority of electoral college votes *out of the whole number available.*
In 2020, the Supreme Court upheld state laws that bind electoral college members to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote in the state. Over half of states have such a law and half of those have penalties for non compliance.
If Joe Biden were to win the November election but become incapacitated in December, the electors in those states would still be legally obligated to vote for him. Other electors, though, would be free to vote for Harris (or someone else).
Read 6 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!

:(