@jciv@mastodon.social
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

jciv

@jciv@mastodon.social

Father, law professor, fan of association football

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

Another day, another Musk court loss

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

"Eran Lerman, Israel’s deputy national security adviser from 2006 to 2015, said the backlash Israel is facing from much of the world over the war, and the rising death toll among Palestinians in Gaza, comes in part from “'the lack of coherent vision for the day after.'”

I'm glad the NYT is reporting this discontent within the IDF, but also ... duh?

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

Lesson here for Universities - don’t try to placate donors by calling in cops or violating academic norms, because nothing will be enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/us/columbia-university-donor-angelica-berrie.html

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

Friendly looking people on their way to teargas some teenagers at , Governor Youngkin's request, based on a policy change barring tents made overnight and without notice.

video/mp4

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

One of my colleagues (using X) is on record as saying Harvard Yard protest is "a bunch of people quietly hanging out and listening to a teach-in lecture, amid handmade signs glorifying violence and urging the destruction of Israel."

Which of the following signs do you suppose he had in mind?

1/n

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar
jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar
jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar
jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar
jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/29/trump-judge-attacks-violence/

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

Effect of political attacks on Harvard over the last six months? Some, but not large enough to drive applications below (or acceptance rate above) precovis levels.

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

Another date, another Musk court loss

https://www.ft.com/content/c67975ac-040c-440e-99fa-744469248160

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

Five on the Supreme Court right go too far even for Justice Barrett in ruling (without need) the only mechanism for barring Trump from holding federal office after engaging in insurrection is under a Congressionally approved statute -- giving an advisory ruling, without a Constitutionally required case or controversy, to preempt efforts to bar Trump in the fall.

TLDR:

The Court violates the Constitution to (purportedly) uphold it, trying to reduce political ire, while in fact creating it.

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

As I understand NY appellate procedure, the only way to appeal it is to put in escrow cash or post a bond equal to 120+% of the total fines, plus interest for a total of $540 million ($350 million verdict, roughly $100 million interest, equaling $450 million, all times 1.2).

Is that right, anyone who knows the relevant rules more closely?

1/n

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

Bret Stephens is a sad dull tool.

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

Senior judge on unanimous per curiam opinion against Trump on immunity was appointed by President Reagan

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

When people respond to an $83 million judgement with cynical comments about how justice is only for the rich and there is never enough "accountability" I feel like just deleting all of my social media accounts.

I won't do it, but I feel like it more often lately.

It isn't MAGA that makes me think democracy won't work. I expect an anti-democratic contentency.

It's the kind of bizarre expectations others have.

Autocracy is based on lies because so many people don't like the truth.

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield @licked You are definitely getting a skewed view reading social media comments!

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Two amicus briefs were filed in the keep-Trump-off-the-ballot case.

This is from Ted Cruz and pals:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24366911-011824-brief-of-us-senator-ted-cruz-majority-leader-steve-scalise-and-177-other-members-of-congress-as-amici-curiae-in-support-of-petitioner-donald-j-trump?responsive=1&title=1

Cruz and friends adopt a standard strategy: include everything in the hopes that something sticks.

This one is from Rick Hasen (election lawyer) and a few others:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/297014/20240118112848137_23-719.Amicus.Foley.Ginsberg.Hasen.pdf

For my 2 cents worth: Start with my explainer here: https://terikanefield.com/section-3-and-the-spirit-of-liberty/

Pay attention to my analysis of Question 1 (which I think is the strongest argument in Trump's favor)

1/

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield @joeinwynnewood

Both were attempts to unlawfully seize power.

One was more ept and therefore lasted years and killed 600K, one was inept and petered out after less than a day and only killed 5 people.

But yes, I compared them.

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield @joeinwynnewood

I think the case feels harder than it otherwise might because:

  1. Few con law profs recalled 14(3). I doubt any in the 1/6 mob knew their acts were not only criminal but would disqualify them from office.

  2. T*ump remains popular. This raises the Q of whether his 1/6 conduct was malum in se.

There are strong answers to both points. But they seem stronger than the more creative ways are trying to argue against applying the literal words of 14(3) to 1/6.

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield @joeinwynnewood

The analogy in criminal law is the principle of desuetude: if a law is broken over many years, and the government tolerates that, the government should not later come along and enforce it strictly. Doing so suggests arbitrary rule.

Again, there's a clear distinction: people were not routinely trying to seize power illegally pre 1/6.

But I do think the fact 14(3) was forgotten + his popularity are the sources of discomfort at applying it to Trump.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Okay, I did it:
https://terikanefield.com/section-3-and-the-spirit-of-liberty/

I offer the radical idea that the Colorado Trump-ballot case and the application of section 3 of the 14th Amendment isn’t easy or straightforward.

Do your thing Mastodon (I always post here first).

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield One assumption you seem to make is that GOP reps and activists won’t go after Biden or other Dems under 14/3 even if Scotus rules Trump can’t be barred. That seems to be a dubious take. Consistency is a virtue for people genuinely committed to the rule of law. Cf. Senate treatment of Garland.

jciv, to random
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

David French, no liberal, thinks Trump should lose his appeal on disqualification under the 14th Amendment:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html

1/13

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

But in these two examples, POTUS is almost by definition excluded from the particular use of "officer" -- no one would think POTUS can appoint himself -- there is a whole other part of the Constitution dealing with how we elect the President.

9/13

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

The textualist argument is that the word "other" would need to be included if POTUS were an "officer" for 14/3. But a simpler textualist approach is to not add redundant qualifiers like "other" when the operation of the sentence makes any other reading absurd – POTUS shall have power to appoint himself? POTUS shall appoint himself?

10/13

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

In third case, II/4 says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" may be impeached. But here, POTUS is never simply a "civil" officer -- he is also commander and chief (and throughout the Constitution distinguishes military and civil officers). So if in fact the goal was to limit impeachment solely to non-military officers plus POTUS and VP, it would not suffice to say "All civil Officers" can be impeached, because that would exclude POTUS.

11/13

jciv,
@jciv@mastodon.social avatar

Conclusion

Textualist readings lean in favor of finding POTUS is an "officer" holding an "office" for all purposes except where it is absurd to think otherwise. An insurrectionist President is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding the Presidency as a result of engaging in an insurrection.

12/13

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • normalnudes
  • everett
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • cubers
  • vwfavf
  • slotface
  • osvaldo12
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • kavyap
  • Durango
  • PowerRangers
  • provamag3
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • khanakhh
  • Leos
  • GTA5RPClips
  • mdbf
  • tacticalgear
  • ethstaker
  • cisconetworking
  • anitta
  • modclub
  • tester
  • megavids
  • All magazines
    •