9th Cir. order denying rehearing en banc to vacate panel decision says no party moved for opinion to be vacated. Thought DOJ said it would
-
Kozinski suggests campaign statements from "poor schlub" campaigning cannot be taken serious and doing so violates 1st amendment /8
He says, citing McCutcheon, that it would chill political speech if campaign statements could later be used to prove government motive. /9
-
-
He doesn't discuss Trump statements in office, or those of Miller etc. But seems to say all campaign statements should be off limits /10
-
J. Kozinski is smart, iconoclastic, and idiosyncratic judge. His opinions (like J. Posner's) get attention because he's very smart, loud /11
-
Expect the government to cite Kozinski's point (as well as Bybee's dissent, which is more on the caselaw) at every turn to support E.O. /12
-
And if this case makes it to
#SCOTUS, framing it as free speech campaign issue appeals directly to Kennedy, conservatives /13 -
Kozinkski is a former Kennedy clerk by the way. All in all, this dissent matters. A lot. 14/14 <End>
-
.
@rickhasen I respect Kozinski but this is a bad argument. Original and interesting but bad. -
Kozinski is generally fantastic, even when he is wrong. But Berzon is quite correct, this is BS.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That is absurd.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
>campaign statements could later be used to prove government motive I actually read that. No, really, I did!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Goddamn well it should.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Mccutcheon doesn't directly support Koz's conclusion on whether campaign statements can be considered though, right?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.