By looking to future, #SCOTUS may push #Trump’s DC trial past election
With the #immunity claims before the #SupremeCourt on Thurs, the #judicial branch is being asked to draw a clear line about what a president can or cannot do.
The high court, w/3 Trump nominees, has generally not been receptive to Trump’s assertions of immunity, forcing him to comply w/a #subpoena & rejecting his efforts to block #Congress from accessing his tax records.
But close observers of the court said several of the justices also will not want to inappropriately rein in future chief execs from doing what the job requires.
At least 4, Chief Justice #JohnRoberts & Justices #Alito, #Kagan, #Kavanaugh — all of whom previously worked as lawyers in the WH or the #DOJ, are likely to be especially sensitive to the implications of their decision for future presidents.
#SCOTUS is hearing a challenge today to a federal #law prosecutors used to charge >350 people who attacked the Capitol on #Jan6.
>100 have been convicted & sentenced under the statute for obstructing or impeding an ofcl proceeding—the joint session that convened to confirm Biden’s victory.
The case could impact #Trump’s federal trial in DC for trying to remain in power, 2 charges he faces are based on the same #obstruction statute.
“I’m not a fan of Begay,” #Alito acknowledged. Justice Elena #Kagan said she wasn’t swayed by Begay either, because in 2011 a majority of the court — including Alito & #ClarenceThomas — ruled the opposite way in a case involving someone fleeing police.
“A few years later, we said, ‘Where did that come from? We made it up!’ And we get rid of the whole thing,” she said. “So that’s not a great advertisement for” Joseph Fischer’s take.
The case involves a lawsuit initiated by… #Missouri & #Louisiana & individual #SocialMedia users. They accuse the #Biden admin of violating the #FirstAmendment by operating a sprawling federal “censorship enterprise” to #influence platforms…. Justices #Kagan & #Kavanaugh, who previously worked in Democratic & Republican admins, respectively, suggested that such exchanges were routine occurrences & did not amount to #censorship or #coercion in violation of the constitutional right to #FreeSpeech.
I don't get the "why does one state get to decide" question from #SCOTUS Justice #Kagan. Like... literally every #State has the authority to exclude any candidate for #President. Ask every #ThirdParty candidate who is only listed on a handful of state ballots, or only one state. Oh, but it's a major party candidate so suddenly it's not allowed for state legislatures to run their elections?
Article 2 Section 1
...
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...
It doesn't say "unless it's one of the two major parties, those candidates get to be on the ballot regardless of the state legislature's direction."
#Colorado went through the process determined by its legislature to see if #Trump should be allowed on the primary ballot and the answer was no. That's it. The end.
Murray’s Denver-based law firm, a small national #PublicInterest firm w/a bench of experienced fmr SCOTUS law clerks, opened just 6 mos ago. The firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of the #ColoradoVoters the next day.
In 2017, Murray wrote an opinion piece in support of #Trump’s nomination of #Gorsuch. He emphasized the similarities between his 2 fmr bosses despite their different #politics. “Both Gorsuch& #Kagan consistently emphasized to us #law clerks that, if we weren’t telling them when we thought their instincts on a case were wrong, we weren’t doing our jobs,”wrote Murray, a Harvard Law grad. “For both, the goal was to reach the correct #legal result, rather than advance any #political party’s agenda.”
@JasonPoe What a phenomenal piece you wrote (linked below).
At a workshop yesterday in San Angelo, Tx, I had a chance to pull up your blog post. Thanks for the shout-out, and highlighting how you had "cross-reference[d] the Kagan strategies with Hattie’s effect sizes to select the strategies with the highest impact on student success." Brilliant!
#Kagan#dissent in student debt case: The most that can be said of theory majority selects, proffered solely by MO is that it is less risible than others. It still contravenes bedrock principle of standing law that plaintiff cannot ride on someone else’s injury. MI is doing just that in relying on injuries to MO Higher Ed Loan Authority a legally, financially independent public corp. That means Court by deciding this case, exercises authority it does not have. It #violates the #Constitution.