DOJ filing rightly getting attention for going after ACLU lawyers, but note also attempt to vacate lower court opnhttp://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/justice-department-petition-in-jane-doe-abortion-case/2615/ …
Show this thread
-
As in the Travel Ban cases, attempt to get SCOTUS to wipe out lower court precedents that Trump DOJ doesn't like
#MunsingwearShow this thread
But it looks like DOJ is changing its longstanding position that vacating lower court opinion not appropriate in case like this onepic.twitter.com/R5jMmBvNI5
-
-
More on the case, and attempts to get disciplinary action against ACLU, from
@scotusreporterhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/trump-administration-suggests-possibility-of-disciplinary-action-against-aclu-lawyers-in-abortion-case/2017/11/03/4380ab6c-bfda-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.48b84fae179a …Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's a fairly common species of SG footnote: To preemptively reconcile (or explain) how current positions fit with past positions.
-
It is still a notable change in position
-
Is it a change, though? They say "this is consistent with it, and even if not, this is an unusual circumstance."
-
Yes I recognize they are trying to distinguish rather than acknowledging change in position, as DOJ has done now in a number of cases
-
Question is whether their argument to distinguish case is persuasive.
-
It also rests on a dubious premise--that 5 members of the Court would have stayed DC Circuit decision pending SCOTUS review.
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.