Marty Lederman

@marty_lederman

Law professor at Georgetown University Law Center

Vrijeme pridruživanja: kolovoz 2011.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @marty_lederman

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @marty_lederman

  1. prije 2 sata

    Steiner's Language & Silence volume had, and continues to have, a deep impact on me; not least in recent years, when institutions, norms, and the lessons of enlightenment once again prove to be so fragile and inadequate.

    Poništi
  2. Once again, y'all are simply underestimating the power of the presidential Sharpie. If he were so inclined, he could have congratulated Alabama for the Chiefs' win.

    Poništi
  3. 1. velj

    Probably the greatest double-bill I ever saw was on June 21, 1981, at the Bayou in D.C. Go4 was propulsive, shocking, intense, undeniable--as were the openers, an unknown band from Athens, Georgia that'd release "Radio Free Europe" less than three weeks later.

    Poništi
  4. 1. velj

    ICYMI: *After* Lisa Murkowski made her calculation behind a veil of ignorance about what John Roberts would do on a tie vote, he unequivocally answered precisely that inquiry--and his answer was very interesting, if perhaps predictable.

    Poništi
  5. 1. velj

    3/ ... "continuing" ad bellum proportionality? That is to say, are these papers predominately for an academic audience or are they designed to have practical application--and, if the latter, how closely do they reflect actual practice?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 1. velj

    2/... if you have any thoughts. First, doesn't there have to be a discrete, focused ad bellum proportionality calculation w/r/t force used by A against B *in a third state C*? Second, does either of you have have any sense how, if at all, states themselves assess ....

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 1. velj

    1/ Thanks for this fine paper, --very helpful and thought-provoking. Curious whether & to what extent the forthcoming paper will concur. It prompted at least two sub-questions that I'd be interested in hearing about from you both, ...

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 1. velj

    John Roberts on what it would have been "appropriate" for him to do in the case of any tie votes.

    Poništi
  9. 31. sij

    What's the problem? It's all perfect! P.S. Mr. Bondy, your client would be "able to provide" such testimony whether or not the Senate calls him as a witness. It's called freedom of speech.

    Poništi
  10. 31. sij

    Wait: Someone's still paying attention to what the lawyers are saying? OBE.

    Poništi
  11. 31. sij

    Self-parody alert: Best "both-sides" equivalency yet from . On the one hand there's President Trump and the entire party controlling the Executive branch, Senate and SCOTUS. On the other, there's "the whole Michel Foucault legacy."

    Poništi
  12. 31. sij

    That's really the best she could come up with? That the trial--controlled by the majority party of which she's a part & requiring 67 votes for conviction--can't be fair, and therefore they're better off voting without relevant witnesses & documents? Major failure of imagination.

    Poništi
  13. 31. sij
    Poništi
  14. 31. sij

    Shame this wasn't published yesterday so that Cipollone could have been asked about it.

    Poništi
  15. 31. sij

    When Murkowski said she'd announce her decision this morning did she mean *Alaska* time?

    Poništi
  16. 31. sij

    He timed it--impeachment/Brexit/coronavirus/the new Taylor Swift documentary--hoping no one would notice?

    Poništi
  17. 31. sij

    And Harris represents 54 times more people than Lisa Murkowski, who is about to decide whether Bolton will be subpoenaed.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 31. sij

    A reminder of the obvious: Trump will not be removed from office, despite strong popular majorities favoring it, b/c John Barrasso, representing a population the size of Fresno, has the same vote as Kamala Harris, representing almost 70 times more people.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 31. sij

    I know of no one--not a single person--who thinks that there was ever any serious chance that anywhere close to 20 Republicans would vote to convict. Outrage--of course. Shock? Not in the slightest. Even you so-called "Never Trumpers" made your priorities crystal clear long ago.

    Poništi
  20. 31. sij

    There's no principled excuse for Bolton telling his story in six weeks but not tonight. He also knows, however, that if he told it today it would change precisely zero Republican Senators' votes--because in their eyes there's nothing especially wrong with a QPQ to harm Biden.

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·