"I left the court a little reassured that it seemed like more of the justices recognized the recipe for evasion. But I remain nervous about that middle standard," - Amanda Cohen Leiter of @AmericanU.
-
-
Show this thread
-
"I came in expecting the petitioners would win. I came away with a different feeling," says former
#GeorgetownLaw professor and co-founder of our Supreme Court Institute, Richard Lazarus. "It's in play that the respondents could win this case."Show this thread -
"Unfortunately, this is a case that turns on understanding hydrology and I think (the justices) don't understand it," says Amanda Cohen Leiter.
Show this thread -
"The real debate here is not going to be (the justices) trying to understand the science," says Erin Murphy. She predicts the conversations among them post-arguments will be focused on various tests put forth in the case.
Show this thread -
"If this case was argued 5-10 years ago, it would probably be a case focused on Chevron Deference," says Erin Murphy. She cites the current attitude of the courts as well as the current administration for the shift.
Show this thread -
"I don't think that you should be liable for something that you can't be proven to have caused. But that could all be addressed with stricter septic regulations." - Amanda Cohen Leiter, who was on the briefs for the respondent.
Show this thread -
"You can't just make up a limiting principle. You have to ground it on statutory language. Anything else you do, you make up, then you lose the case." - Richard Lazarus reacting to arguments at County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund case.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.