Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"

You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone

Seriously people. Executive orders mean exactly nothing to what Trump legally can or can't do to fuck with the election results (which is zero). Stop letting idiots make you crazy

There are two very simple, very basic reasons executive orders are meaningless here. Understand them, please

1) the president cannot issue an executive order that grants himself a power he does not already have. For example, the president could not issue an executive order saying that from now on he can make laws they don't need to pass Congress

(I mean, he could sign an executive order saying that, but it wouldn't have any legal effect)

2) the president can issue executive orders at any time.

So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice?

Let's talk about this North Dakota attempt to legislate around Section 230 and create a civil right of action for users censored by social media sites. CC @mmasnick

Forget, for a moment, that this law, if it passed would immediately be deemed void as preempted by Section 230 (Federal law is supreme over state law where they conflict, and this would create an express conflict). This bill is a really good example of why this stuff is hard

Here's the key provision of the bill. The various highlighting on these versions shows areas we'll touch on

First of all, let's look at the last of those images. There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law - and, in fact, if 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct). So it's incredibly stupid.

But again, put that aside. Let's look at the substance.

First of all, who gets to decide whether content fits into these highlighted categories? Do they actually think that the government will get to decide what counts as "otherwise objectionable"?

So after over a week Fake Ass was played and played good....@THEREALTRDJ
I said he was playing a game and he was the pawn in my game...
We all saw the Little Nigeria Fake running scared....The posts off him tagging law enforcement and other people was just laughable...hahaaa...

You see the Supposedly sicario was a real Sicario called Broly an easy Google image search could have found this...but Fake ass couldn't even do that...and he fell for it big time...lmfao

Kerala High Court resumes hearing of Bail Application of M Sivasankar, Former Principal Secretary of Kerala Chief Minister

Sivasankar is presently in ED's custody for alleged involvement in the Kerala Gold Smuggling case. He is also being investigated by the NIA and Customs Department.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta is arguing for Sivasankar.

He denies ED's allegations that Sivasankar contacted customs officials to clear the baggage alleged to be containing smuggled gold.

Gupta claims statement made by co-accused Swapna Suresh about Sivasankar's involvement are not credible as the same were made after her arrest.

Gupta points out that the correspondence between Sivasankar and Swapna does not disclose any knowledge on the latter's part.

He also tells Court that all of Swapna's statements categorically denied his client's involvement in gold smuggling, until before her arrest.

In a final address, @JusticeATR Makan Delrahim says some of the changes recommended by House Judiciary are "quite sensible." DOJ needs more funding for antitrust, and he backs higher filing fees for mergers.

He has six recommendations: 1) Create bright line rules and alter burden of proof for mergers.

“Courts need additional guidance in these cases.” In cases where a company has more than 50 percent market share, burden should be on merging parties for any transaction in that market, he says

DOJ would still have to prove the market definition and the market share of the dominant firm.

Back in the mists of time, we suggested that the proposed Scottish Hate Crime bill might be used as a stick to beat women who wanted to discuss the GRA, sex-based rights, & welfare of gender confused children.

We were told we were being silly: no one would do that.

Thread/

Today, we saw two proposed amendments to the hate crime bill with regard to #FreeSpeech in relation to transgender identity.

A general one from @humzayousaf & one from @liamkerrmsp which covers many of the topics women feared might result in prosecution - thank you!

If anyone had doubts that the extremists of gender ideology did not intend to use this legislation as a means to silence and intimidate, the frothing indignation of anti-woman activists who might be prevented from filing hourly hate crime reports, surely laid this to rest.

Naturally, Scottish Green Party were quick to charge into the fray. Emz Cuthbertson, co-convener of SGP women & Rainbow Greens, was in no way hyperbolic in referring to it as a "transphobes charter", with Dr Kevin finding the idea of not being able to shut women up "terrifying".

Also up were activist James (who once promoted a lurid fantasy about lesbians beating up a NB child at Edinburgh Pride) & serial party hopper, Tristan who was horrified that "misgendering" was not about to be a crime & thinks advocating child counselling is "conversion therapy".

Entering 2021, our hearts are already broken.

That's exactly why we're ready to fight the good fight

And let me say this WADR in response to understandably heartbroken, frustrated and passionate people suggesting that I'm an easy touch, a RINO, naive, or insufficiently dedicated to conservatism: >

These remarks come up not only in response to my video saying that we must remember and live by the principles we say we're fighting for, but to my tweets saying that Lin Wood has lost touch with reality or that John Roberts is not being blackmailed. >

I've been a conservative activist since I was a teenager. The announcements for conservative events I was running were torn off the walls at Princeton in the 80's. Interviewers at law firms recommended that I not be extended an offer because the Federalist Society was Nazis. >

More recently I left one law firm partnership after being told I could not represent the Gab social media platform after it the representation been approved up and down the org chart and on the eve of filing.

People might say we were Nazis. >