I mean, arguing with headlines is *always* my favorite thing. I think the article abundantly explains why I wrote it.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner @stringquintet
Chris Geidner Retweeted Chris Geidner
As to that specific point, however, I also think differently, noted here:https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/869973037403090944 …
Chris Geidner added,
Chris GeidnerVerified account @chrisgeidnerReplying to @chrisgeidner[Seems to me like you'd want to leave that to the justices (and in your arg to them for cert). But, that's just me.] https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/feds-say-supreme-court-is-likely-to-hear-a-case-they-havent?utm_term=.clqZKnzk4y#.ac4m5gBeDw …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Eh, I don't think SCOTUS is so petty as to deny cert just because the government is publicly predicting that cert will happen.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stringquintet
It's a lot more complicated than that. It has to do with the posture they're coming into the court already, and the underlying issues here.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @stringquintet
I think DOJ v much should be seeking to come to SCOTUS in as clean of a way as possible — & they want to avoid frustrating the judge in MI.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
That's just best-practices 101: tee up issues for cert cleanly, with min baggage (doctrinal or otherwise); & don't irk a fellow Art 3 judge.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @stringquintet @chrisgeidner
Here's hoping DOJ ignores our wise counsel and continue tripping over their own—aaaand it's bedtime for me!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.