/2 Of course, that might be pre-Trump-judiciary thinking on my part: unforeseen outcomes of a decision aren’t a problem if you’re prepared to be blatantly, unabashedly outcome-determinative and reject consistency or intellectual honesty as values.
What would be the argument that they’re admissible anymore even? It seems to completely bar admissibility of presidential communications with aids, which is almost the entirety of the tapes.
Here's the thing: the people pulling the fire alarm on Trump v. US are people like Radley, Legal Eagle and @kenwhite.bsky.social , etc. I've followed these guys for years and they are not prone to panic-mongering. They're usually the ones saying, "Take a deep breath". It really is that bad.
Oh, very much misunderstood what you meant there! I thought you were implying that there was something to Republican claims that the whole thing was a witch hunt
Genuinely what was the "there" for Russiagate? From what I can tell none of the prosecutions held up and the basic idea of a Trump-Russia connection is extremely well established
The counterargument here is hilarious. Roberts specifically listed pardon power as something subject to absolute immunity, the assassins would obviously be pardoned at no risk in this scenario.
There are two elements to the immunity decision that are particularly extreme in a way that many will miss: (1) motive is irrelevant and (2) immune acts are not just excluded from prosecution, they’re excluded from evidence.
/1
the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on corruption is basically at a point where the only thing that counts as a bribe is someone handing a public official a giant bag of money with a dollar sign on it while saying “this is a bribe” out loud
Sure, but the people the NYT *thinks* are experts will be saying that, and the fact that they're saying that will be enough proof of their expertise for the NYT's taste too
95% of people who’ve gone to law school hate this shit, there’s just massive affirmative action in the form of judicial appointments for the freaks who don’t.
It’s sort of a damning indictment of our political situation that there was ever active debate on whether giving people money means they have more money
No, math is accurate. Basically everywhere in the UK outside of London is borderline third world by American standards. UK is legit poorer than Poland.
I think you’re overestimating the amount of those likes coming from actual humans. Everyone besides the most demented of old boomers knows the AI house style by now, and no one actually likes it
Right? The only explicit political argument I ever heard him make in class was that federalism is good from an efficiency standard, it probably not mandated by the 10th the way a lot of his compatriots argued. He was coauthoring with Amar, for god’s sake!
I’m still there, unfortunately, and he’s now made it impossible to block on your phone without going to people’s profile, which is always awful, but never more so than the incident I just had where I tried to block an explicit Nazi and got explicit, naked cartoon child porn
Also, thinking of Presser reminded me of how he literally assigned his own piece from the 90s on the Clinton impeachment and you basically had to agree with him if you wanted to pass
