Why did the Federal Judicial Center put out a publication that, essentially, says fossil-fuel manufacturers should lose climate cases? Why did Elena Kagan write a forward to it? Did they tell Congress this was coming? The impropriety and irresponsibility are staggering. 1/4
As Congress considers the FSGG appropriations, Republicans should ask the FJC why they quietly published a new edition of their "reference manual" for scientific evidence that is so biased it would make Al Gore blush. 2/4
An organizer of the project--David Tatel--said at the outset that the goal is to convince "climate skeptic" judges to take a different view. Why did the FJC think this was its job? 3/4
Congressional Republicans should demand that that the FJC rescind this absurd publication before it does real damage to the judiciary's credibility in Congress. Article below. 4/4
Here’s the thing: SNAP’s authorization has lapsed. So even if the $3b (or however many billion the Judge from Motley Rice thinks) exists, the program requiring its expenditure does not. 1/9
They don’t cover this in School House Rock but how a bill becomes a law happens twice for a government program: first when the program is authorized and second when it’s funded via appropriations. McConnell is assuming this is all about approps but it’s actually both. 2/9
Is there money in a contingency fund? Sure, probably. At minimum there’s $3b available through 09/2026. Maybe there’s another $3b available through 09/2027 but none of that necessarily matters. 3/9
At the outset of the current Trump administration, I had an op-ed in the WSJ on how law firms who terrorized the Trump 1 were signaling their Trump savvy to clients. I explained why that was a joke. Well, in today’s WaPo it seems some firms got the message. 1/12
Much of my piece involved how Biglaw gave Trump 1 alumni the cold shoulder, but I also discussed how Biglaw’s pro-bono industrial complex had fielded an army against Trump 1 and might do the same this time. 2/12
Of course none of this is free—it’s cross-subsidized by the paying clients. I wondered if it’s really in those paying clients’ interests, under Republican government, to be represented by institutionalized Democrat impact litigation shops. 3/12
The Planned Parenthood TRO is probably the most insane judicial action this administration. A TRO directing an appropriation in the face of enacted statute is like Michelangelo-level resistance. Some have argued SCOTUS should reassign the case and there’s a lot to that. 1/x
There’s a fascinating article on reassignment from the Stanford Law Review. It starts with a famous sentencing case where CA2 reassigned a case because the trial judge was both resisting and evading review. (Sound familiar?) 2/x
It turns out reassignment isn’t some esoteric phenomenon. Every circuit asserts the power to do it. 3/x
Jeff Flake gave my my start in politics and for that I’m grateful, but his commentary keeps missing the mark. Bc he’s not really in the game anymore he misinterprets what happened to Tillis, gives flawed advice, and downplays the threat of Democrats. 🧵1/21
Let’s start with TT. As I’ve said before in this context, it’s just not right to say that he refused to cling to Trump to win a primary. His problem was that Trump and Leadership wouldn’t let him move center *on policy* for the general election. 2/21
This simply isn’t JF’s morality tale. Maybe TT will convert it into such a tale in the coming months? But that would be unwise. The eternal morality play puts you on JF’s trajectory; the process/policy story on Sinema’s. Knowing TT, he’d prefer the latter. 3/21