Normalizing abolition by starting one state at a time is, in fact, how great advances in human rights are accomplished.https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1432937204410691584 …
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
You’re a big “textualist” guy and also a court proceduralist. This is (yes, at present) a facially unconstitutional law, in which the 5th Circuit prevented a district court trial record. SCOTUS then chose to simply ignore it, despite its haste to settle other matters.
2 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank
Basically, there is no possible procedural or textualist justification for what happened. You can say, “I want the Court to overturn Roe”, but the actions of the 5th Circuit and the Court can’t be justified.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yeselson
Textualism assumes the existence of text. There's no text restricting a the popular majority in Texas from what it did. Ct already has a case on the merits docket, why rule preemptively instead from shadow docket? This isn't like PA election case where doing nothing is the end.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
In this case, Roe is the text and, for now, it's a binding SCOTUS holding. And the reason to rule is because a state (as it happened the second largest one) passed a law which is, yes, for now, is obviously illegal. Otherwise any state can pass facially unconstitutional laws.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
You really don't understand the theory of democratic legitimacy at the heart of originalism & textualism if you think a court decision stands on the same ground as an enactment by a popular majority or supermajority.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
That's pretty funny coming from you. You thought Shelby--with explicit support from the 15th amendment--was just fine to eviscerate even though it passed by enormous margins in Congress.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yeselson
When have I argued that? At a minimum, Shelby County failed to thoroughly analyze the question of judicial reviewability in originalist terms. It's far from a unanimously popular decision among originalist scholars.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If the formula is at all judicially reviewable, the Court was right. Availability of review is somewhat dubious.
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.