#SCOTUS, April 17, 2017. Gorsuch, J., entering.pic.twitter.com/bPnIh9nmv2
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
No action from the court on Masterpiece Cakeshop. Still. #SCOTUS
#SCOTUS denied cert in Castro v. DHS. Background from @SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/castro-v-department-homeland-security/ …pic.twitter.com/23FttXj5Lc
Alright, headed up to the courtroom to see Gorsuch on the bench. #SCOTUS
Woo. A very excited bench today. They were almost giddy to have a new colleague. Jokes and laughter all around. #SCOTUS
The Chief Justice opened the sitting by welcoming Neil Gorsuch as the 101st associate justice of the Supreme Court.
After Roberts wished him "a long & happy career" on the bench, Gorsuch spoke briefly, thanking his colleagues for their "very warm welcome."
The case, Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, featured several questions from Justice Gorsuch about the underlying text of the law.
Perry's lawyer, Christopher Landau: We're not asking the court "to break new ground." Gorsuch: "No," just continuing "to make it up."
Alito, on the "unbelievably complicated" law at issue: "Who wrote this statute — someone who enjoys pulling the wings off flies?"
Sotomayor, joined in the light mood in a question to the gov't lawyer, noting: "If I'm writing the opinion — which I hope I'm not ..."
That prompted laughter from the whole bench, with the Chief giving her a joking look, like, "just you wait."
Later, though, when Gorsuch pressed Ass't to the SG Brian Fletcher on the "plain text" question about the case, things turned slightly.
Kagan lightly but clearly said NG's reading "would be a kind of revolution — to the extent one can have a revolution in this kind of case."
tl; dr: It is a "new kid at school" sorta day at #SCOTUS, w/ all showing their good side to their new classmate — but also watching closely.
And one or more 'liberal' #SCOTUS justices didn't want to hear the case about Obama jailing immigrant kids in deportation internment camps.
Well ... didn't want the current court to hear the case. Which is a very different thing than what you assert here.
Because they didn't want another pro-immigrant justice hearing the case?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/21/neil-gorsuchs-rulings-come-under-the-microscope/ …
Granting cert is a vote-counting measure. I'm not sure what your aim is here, but it appears that it's just some partisan thing, so be well.
My aim was to have a wrong righted, but unfortunately #SCOTUS took a pass.
I'm talking about in this weird Twitter thread.
I was voicing frustration that SCOTUS didn't grant cert in Castro v. DHS, the Berks baby jail case.http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/castro-v-department-homeland-security/ …
I tweeted about the cert denial later in the thread you were replying to, first of all. Second, your tweet makes assumptions about the ...
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.