@emptywheel So would we know if there were AUMF failures in ct that prompted the turn, or cld it be just private communications with judges?
@MikeDrewWhat Here's post I wrote at time. http://is.gd/HSaSmm It was a VERY problematic AUMF, while claiming ACLU had wrong justification
-
-
@emptywheel I bet I remember the post. Wasn't sure, so didn't ask. Thanks! -
@MikeDrewWhat I believe it's my only post ever with "fuck" in the title, which is saying something.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel Very last thing: do you have a link to the Hellerstein ruling? -
@MikeDrewWhat Ruling: http://is.gd/GjLKGZ Post w/more context: http://is.gd/UEQ6SE -
@emptywheel Many, many thanks!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel Gov's claim there: "requested injunction would necessarily and improperly inject the courts into decisions of the President >>Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel >> force." So, ambiguous. "including imminent threats" leaves open Art. II just, but overall looks more like a AUMF claim to me. -
@MikeDrewWhat@emptywheel ...Actually, no. I'd say just genuinely ambiguous what the fundamental claim of authority relies on there.
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.