Mark Joseph SternVerified account

@mjs_DC

Staff Writer . Courts and the law. Do you have a link to the ruling?

Washington, DC
slate.com/author/mark-jo…
Joined November 2009
Born June 10
2,746 Photos and videos Photos and videos

Tweets

You blocked @mjs_DC

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @mjs_DC

  1. 8 hours ago

    It does seem obvious that the GSA administrator shouldn’t have sole power to start the transition, but who SHOULD hold that power, and how should they determine the true winner? Please direct your ideas to and , the working group on this question.

    Emily gets one thing right in her letter...Congress does need to amend the law to make this process clearer. This shouldn't happen again. That doesn't mean that Emily handled this appropriately, she could have released funds sooner. But this process needs more clarity.
    46 replies 52 retweets 322 likes
    Undo
  2. 9 hours ago

    🎊🙌🎊

    Story here
    Show this thread
    4 replies 6 retweets 74 likes
    Undo
  3. 14 hours ago

    UPDATE: Here’s a list of the 3,582 voters—all from counties with large Black communities—whom Paul Newby is attempting to disenfranchise in order to win the chief justiceship of the North Carolina Supreme Court. If you live in NC, check for your name.

    Here is the tragic and infuriating story of Cheri Beasley, the first Black woman to serve as Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, who seems likely to lose her seat to an aggrieved white colleague who ran a racist campaign against her.
    5 replies 308 retweets 380 likes
    Undo
  4. 15 hours ago

    It’s also worth listening to Scalia muse aloud, in Fisher v. University of Texas II, that the school might “ought to have fewer” Black students, and that affirmative action is keeping out “really competent Blacks.”

    4 replies 22 retweets 91 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  5. 15 hours ago

    If you’ve never heard Scalia deride the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirement as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement,” it’s worth a listen. That requirement, which SCOTUS dismantled, would’ve blocked so many voter suppression measures in effect this election.

    22 replies 258 retweets 759 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  6. 17 hours ago

    The fact that Kagan is still recusing herself from cases more than 10 years after leaving the solicitor general's office should serve as a gentle reminder to Biden to weigh the likelihood of future recusals when nominating judges and justices. Recusals can change outcomes.

    3 replies 43 retweets 345 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  7. 17 hours ago

    Small note: Justice Kagan recused herself from the consideration of three cases in today's orders list, presumably because she was involved somehow while solicitor general ... a position she left more than 10 years ago.

    4 replies 18 retweets 128 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  8. 17 hours ago

    I see nothing major in the Supreme Court's orders this morning. No action on cases involving the election or COVID. No new grants. A quiet day.

    4 replies 7 retweets 96 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  9. 18 hours ago

    Good morning! The Supreme Court will issue orders at 9:30 a.m.😅

    12 replies 28 retweets 325 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  10. Retweeted
    Nov 22

    One GOP candidate in PA who lost, suing to throw out millions of mail-in votes previously encouraged his supporters to vote by mail and absentee if they didn't feel comfortable going out in public and praised the state's mail-in voting system.

    27 replies 265 retweets 810 likes
    Undo
  11. Nov 20

    One startling aspect of today's opinion: The majority discredits the opposition of *every mainstream medical organization* to "conversion therapy," claiming that these groups are simply trying to censor therapists who don't share "majority preferences."

    42 replies 194 retweets 760 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  12. Nov 20

    This is an important point from Martin's dissent. The majority claims there's not enough evidence that "conversion therapy" is harmful. But medical experts have said *it would be unethical* to conduct the research that the majority demands, because it would harm children.

    34 replies 488 retweets 2,211 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  13. Nov 20

    The Supreme Court's six conservative justices will likely (1) strike down laws barring licensed counselors from seeking to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity, and (2) continue to uphold laws that force physicians to recite anti-abortion propaganda to patients.

    18 replies 304 retweets 1,595 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  14. Nov 20

    Today's decision from the 11th Circuit blocking bans on LGBTQ "conversion therapy" for minors creates a circuit split. There is thus a very good chance the Supreme Court will now take up the issue. I have no real doubt that SCOTUS will find these bans unconstitutional.

    16 replies 303 retweets 1,719 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  15. Nov 20

    This is what Rule By Trump Judges looks like: We are not allowed to shield LGBTQ youth from discredited "conversion therapy," even though it increases risk of suicide. Trump judges won't let LGBTQ people protect our own communities, our own children, from harm. Sickening.

    31 replies 702 retweets 3,125 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  16. Nov 20

    Note that these bans only apply to minors and licensed counselors. Not clergy or private citizens. And lawmakers found that trying to change a child's sexual orientation or gender identity is extremely harmful and dangerous. The 11th Circuit's Trump judges don't care.

    22 replies 471 retweets 2,727 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  17. Nov 20

    🚨11th Circuit rules that bans on anti-LGBTQ "conversion therapy" violate the First Amendment. 2–1 decision, both judges in the majority appointed by Trump. A really awful and frightening decision.

    491 replies 4,414 retweets 9,486 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  18. Nov 20

    For the "it's not just Trump" files: John James, a Republican who lost the Michigan Senate race by *85,000* votes, has launched a grift/fundraiser for his "legal defense fund," which seeks to overturn the outcome of his race:

    51 replies 193 retweets 559 likes
    Undo
  19. Nov 20

    Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger's family is getting serious death threats, but you won't hear about it from Turley because Raffensberger refuses to play along with Trump's half-assed coup, so he and his family aren't worth defending.

    While it will be difficult to rescind such a vote, the silence in the media and from Democratic leaders on this harassment is chilling. Indeed, Democratic leaders have joined in the personal attacks.
    Show this thread
    8 replies 121 retweets 469 likes
    Undo
  20. Nov 20

    I talked to some experts in Georgia election law—including a former secretary of state—who told me Lindsey Graham's alleged interference in the Georgia vote count, if true, constitutes criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree:

    74 replies 417 retweets 1,281 likes
    Undo

@mjs_DC hasn't Tweeted yet.

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.

    You may also like

    ·