Hope it's wrong, but I'm hearing through the grapevine about this bonkers plan: Trump would adjourn both Houses of Congress under Article II, section 3, and then recess-appoint his Cabinet.
- A Trump nominee who can't win prompt confirmation in a Senate with 53 Republicans is someone who shouldn't be nominated in the first place.
- Abbott is not ”defy[ing] a Supreme Court ruling.” The Court vacated an injunction against the federal government. It did not order Texas to do, or not do, anything.Abbott is using the Texas Guard to defy a Supreme Court ruling. When Gov. Faubus did this in 1957, Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas Guard to ensure compliance with the law. Biden must follow this example of bold, decisive leadership to end this crisis before it gets worse.
- The attack was very likely illegal even if the victim was a drug trafficker. There are lawful ways of dealing with drug traffickers. Deliberately killing them without trial isn't one of them.Breaking News: President Gustavo Petro of Colombia accused the U.S. of killing an innocent fisherman in a boat attack. President Trump said he would slash aid in response. nyti.ms/4qf13N3
- Alexander Hamilton: Senate's power to approve or reject a president's top nominees “would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters,” including those “who had no other merit than that … of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the
- Guess who testified in October 2021 that the "President has no role" in the amendment process and "is not part of the amendment process"? Georgetown law prof Victoria Nourse.Congratulations to #GeorgetownLaw Professor @vicnourse on her decades of hard work advocating on behalf of women's rights and the Equal Rights Amendment #ERA, which Pres. Biden this morning said should be considered the law of the land. Read more: cnn.it/3CdaV5AReaders added contextThe National Archivist has stated the amendment cannot be certified without action from Congress or the courts: abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden… Biden's January 17, 2025 statement is purely symbolic and lacks legal authority: npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-… The original ratification deadline of 1979 (extended to 1982) was missed: apnews.com/article/joe-bi…
- Two big Ninth Circuit rulings today: 1. Court rules that Oregon requirement that parents seeking to adopt a kid from foster care agree to "respect, accept, and support" kid's sexual orientation and gender identity violates the First Amendment. Opinion by (excellent Trump
- Awesome letter of resignation by Hagan Scotten, lead prosecutor in the Eric Adams case. Scotten, BTW, is recipient of two Bronze Stars and former law clerk to Chief Justice Roberts and then-D.C. Circuit judge Kavanaugh. 1/
- Replying to @EdWhelanEPPCHouse Speaker Mike Johnson needs to say NO to this right away.
- The only explanation I can see for the Supreme Court's extraordinary 7-2 order that directs the Trump administration "not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court" is that the Court does not trust the Trump
- Outrageous misrepresentation of Supreme Court ruling. The unanimous Court ruled that the district-court order “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had heTrump: The supreme court, it was 9-0? Miller: In our favor, against the district court ruling, saying no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy
- Replying to @EdWhelanEPPCAs predicate for Trump's exercise of adjournment power, one House of Congress would seek other House's consent to adjourn and be denied. So Speaker of House would need to be complicit in evisceration of Senate's advice-and-consent role.
- Almost as if Trump administration is trying to avoid judicial review of the legality of its lethal attacks on suspected drug traffickersBizarre and troubling: the U.S. kills at sea without trial—but won't try to prosecute the survivors in open court.
- Would someone please point me to the best legal argument that the Presidential Records Act somehow allows a former president to retain, and to refuse to return, and to conceal his possession of, classified materials? I'm not getting it. 1/
