And here we see the difference between this and the criminal due process context. Selective and vindictive prosecution claim can be made in CrimLaw to show acting in bad faith, but not here.
Just a college freshman in love with ConLaw and democracy. UC Davis '28
29 followers 23 following 88 posts
view profile on Bluesky
And here we see the difference between this and the criminal due process context. Selective and vindictive prosecution claim can be made in CrimLaw to show acting in bad faith, but not here.
Probably bc on appeal from a conservative circuit like the 5th, they wouldn't want their conservative colleagues doing the same.
But hypothetically if there weren't?
Why doesn't the ruling have circuit-wide effect? Or is it simply that the govt can attempt a deportation in another area of the circuit, but this case would be applicable binding precedent so not worth the litigation effort?
New trial with seemingly new prosecutor since Coney was fired. Why no harmless error analysis? Unless you're implying that there is and you believe that it wouldn't be a harmless error?
Also important to note that this is solely based on the Superseding Indictment. I am not familiar with all of the evidence introduced at trial, which could change things.
...is appropriate for at least Count 3 (assuming she wins in SCOTUS), and probably safest to do it for C4 as well.
...only 5y for that. But if evidence from V4 (C6) was improperly admitted and prejudicially influenced the jury’s view of Maxwell’s overall conduct—especially as to her MO or credibility—she could argue that the jury’s verdict on C4 was also contaminated. So it seems that harmless error analysis...
After surveying the SI: Count 3 is about Victims 1-4. C4 is about V1 exclusively. C6 is about V4 exclusively. Therefore, she could plausibly argue that immunized C6 testimony spilled over to taint C3, since it partly relied on V4 to establish intent and pattern. However, C3 is the lesser charge...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnVf...
... custody), then what is the Constitution good for. As Ben Franklin put it, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
@alegalnerd.bsky.social After reading this, with frankly tears in my eyes, I recall what I said a couple days ago. Lincoln's "The constitution is not a suicide pact." If no remedy means the destruction of democracy, and nothing short of it (kidnapping citizens off the streets and transferring...
That is one of the greatest opinions I have ever read.
Shouldn't the plaintiff's lawyers anticipated and sought class certification?
Well at least it isn't in regard to the substance of your back and forth with Barnett, only on scope of nationwide injunctions.
This is what I'm getting at @joedudekjd.bsky.social
I just looked through the brief. His arguments re: deference are persuasive, but to what extent does that carry over to a Court's remedy powers? In other words, if the executive does do something unlawful, are there limits on the remedies? Is less deference owed in that regard as well?
If you were in his shoes, would you take a more aggressive approach?
Could you also explain why they don't meet the mandamus standard?
Civil contempt, though who is it levied at? Govt? T is sued in his official capacity. Why would he care?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... Affidavits filed by state agency employees
of the text of what they are about to vote on. Especially in the context of constitutional text that shouldn't be using highly technical words. It is intended to be understandable to the common reader.
I'm not using the case as judicial precedent of a reliance on common law. I'm using to show the common understanding of the CC's text, an originalist argument. Legislative history can be troublesome bc not all legislators shared the same purpose. It can, however, demonstrate a common understanding
relied*
case, State v Manuel, that relief on English practice. (Couldn't bother looking it up in the record itself, so here's a screenshot from my upcoming article)
Nothing in the enactment history suggests the 14A framers sought anything more restrictive than that English common law practice. To the contrary the record indicates a broader definition the extent that it wouldn't discriminate on race. In fact, Sen. Trumbull read unto the record a North Carolina
What about the argument that the common law dictates that allegiance and and protection of the sovereign go hand in hand, are mutual, and require no specific act, but are automatic at birth. If the king is obligated to protect, the subject owes allegiance, and vice versa.
I would not call the central debate ludicrous. Not by a long shot. I would only call Ho's recent invasion argument that bc there is no plausible argument that the children of occupying aliens exception applies.
And it's even conservative originalists like John Yoo and James Ho saying that there is no chance this is constitutional (latter at least back in 2006, now having to revert to the ludicrous "invasion" argument.
@alegalnerd.bsky.social , my points exactly
I don't know honestly, I don't know if there's a space between status quo and not that doesn't involve some sort of bad situation for an innocent child.
That's a good question, and I recognize my view isn't fully fledged out and I am open to better ones. I was thinking maybe 5 years?
You asked the question a few days ago about it it's good on policy grounds. My policy views would be birthright citizenship should have some form of restriction where a parent must have spent a minimum amount of time in US to apply
Now this is a good point that I haven't seen a lot. Policy *will* infect their minds.
Turn him into Tsar Nicholas's Rasputin
Doesn't exactly answer your question, but I'm currently writing an article for the Davis Political Review that I will share when complete. I will share the intro, though.
I certainly wish my university had a good class covering that century of English history. Instead, it covers more so of the cultural development of that period.
Professor Kreis, do you have any book recommendations on English political development of the 1600s covering the topics that have arisen as a result of the citizenship and impoundments EOs?
What would be the legal remedy for impacted states? What relief can be sought? Mandamus?
I'm researching estoppel in pais right now, but it seems its not valid agsinst govt acting as sovereign to enforce laws, right?
Yes thats what i was wondering ⬇️. May I ask why it isnt allowed in the civil world?
bsky.app/profile/neem...
Well thats what the entrapment by estoppel defense is for: don't even need to get it into writing, they can presumably point to the public record of Trump saying he won't enforce it, Executive order is cherry on top.
Wouldn't that be closer to a public authority defense?
Also unsure: is this a valid defense to a civil enforcement suit?
Could provide grounds for an entrapment by estoppel defense? cc: @alegalnerd.bsky.social
I'm curious about an example of a SCOTUS case where an EPC challenge was brought and would have succeeded had there been the ERA.
That line is great advice, but this line has stuck with me ever since and is applicable to everyone in every facet of life
We will not see T giving a farewell speech as eloquent as this though: www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Ga...
We thought Biden would be LBJ in June 2024. He was LBJ, we soon discovered. Now he has become Carter. Incredible signs of history repeating itself! How characteristic that T is a mix of Nixon and Reagan. Tax cuts for wealthy and criminal rot from the oval office. Wonderful times ahead!
And, you know, it's frustrating that we're over here trying to put together a puzzle of sorts of how to indirectly prove subjective intent - pointing to things like how he didn't stop it afterwards when he could - and he's just like "no confession, no good."
I ask this in full agreement with ur thread: How often is such direct evidence - a confession - obtained before an incitement prosecution is brought? Is it absolutely necessary? I think I already know the answer to these questions.
But wasn't the essence of her argument in that part of the concurrence that it's a right not to stand *trial* if you have a valid case for immunity. But now trial is over.
I would think that Barrett would be closest to the liberals on this, as demonstrated with what appeared to be an uneasiness with T's positions in T v. US oral arguments + concurrence.
would T take the position that the case should just be dismissed since he is now president, and the very act of appealing the conviction is burdensome to the presidency?
Lets say T's efforts to get a stay/injunction on sentencing are unsuccessful, T gets discharge sentence, becomes T47. When he is doing he standard appeal of the conviction, what would his position be? Besides his arguments of, for e.g., federal preemption, evidence improperly entered, etc.,
What will T's stance be in appellate courts re: overturning conviction for non-immunity reasons? Would he try to argue that the entire case should be dismissed because just having argue a merits-based appeal (for reasons such as evidentiary errors) is burdensome for a sitting president?
Yes, being against the death penalty requires you to not pick and choose which offenders' actions are egregious enough to not merit clemency. That defeats the point of the principle IMO.
*Except when it comes to controlling who appears on their ballots
Would it have really been that difficult to click "keep lines together"?
Interesting, Sen. Blumenthal suggests putting together a legal defense fund for political targets: x.com/kaitlancolli...
My personal opinion would be to pardon civil servants in T's cross hairs, like Dr Fauci,who didn't ask for this retribution and were just doing their jobs. But politicians like Schiff and Cheney should allow themselves to be investigated for BS charges to serve as examples of T's authoritarianism.
So maybe this question can be answered, or in the alternative, referred to a podcast episode or previous post that answers it bsky.app/profile/neem...
Could you point me to which of your recent (or older is fine) podcasts you address which testimony couldn't have been missed before bringing a 2383 charge based on J6 speech?
My guess would be the speech itself, what he said when watching on TV afterwards (which wasn't established by exec privileged info, IIRC), and what he said about magnetometers (goes to "likely to incite or produce such action").
How would Meadows and Pence testimony be relevant to a 2383 prosecution if it would only be for what he said on stage on J6? What testimony specifically is relevant to establishing the two prongs of Brandenburg?
She never answers this question
I agree, but shouldn't the law be blind to logistics?
But I would deny (1), I'm not sure if I am completely sold on (2) as a constitutional matter but might support just because logistically what's the point of a prosecution continuing if person elected (although maybe if such a constitutional immunity exists, not in effect until J6), but grant (3)
I meant motions, sorry
A part of me wants Merchan to deny emotions even if I agree with the second one, just so the case ends up at SCOTUS so we can get established precedent on temporary presidential immunity while in office.
I don't know anything about this case, but upon looking at the QP just now, it looks really aggressively worded and seems to favor FDA. Is that the vibe you're getting from a majority during OA?
People interpret facts to fit the narrative that they already believe instead of going to the conclusion that the facts lead to, I guess.
Could you explain on what other grounds they'd stop it? Besides what you believe you be delay, they didn't entirely stop the prosecution before the election.
1. Since insurrection would have mainly focused on J6 itself, would all of that testimony be necessary? 2. Could you further explain the last sentence?
...legal defense, and as a lawyer, you must be able to put aside your personal feelings. Just as a defense attorney must do so when dealing with the worst of the worst, like a child rapist.
And I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that his personal politics are quite different from T's, that he was in the inner circles of much of the New York liberal legal community. Which just goes to show that, for lawyers, as long as you don't become unethical, everyone is entitled to a quality...
...text ("may happen"). Another test for whether they will apply originalism consistently regardless of who the parties are.
Is the only way to challenge an invalid recess appt to challenge an action they take? Bc status quo says appt for vacancy pre-recess is ok. If this issue reaches high court again, interesting to see if they uphold Scalia conc (joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas) and look just to the...
When is it normally customary for cabinet to resign? Do they submit their letter before and say effective J20 @12? If so, normal order could still be enough to prevent the appts since T presumably couldn't declare a recess until after J20 @12 at the earliest
If that approach is adopted, couldn't Biden have his cabinet resign before J3 or J20, as long as it's before House declares adjournment and Senate disagrees?
What are the potential grounds for DIG?
Probably a lot have solar panels
