Categories Law
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
Honest Q: Some people argue in good faith that an impeachment trial after POTUS leaves office is unconstitutional. I think they\u2019re wrong. But let\u2019s say they\u2019re right, yet senate does it anyway. Does anyone seriously think SCOTUS reverses verdict (or even can)?
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 17, 2021
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."
Bilious bullshit.
"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.
A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.
He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).
Bilious bullshit.
Trump's "lawyers" won't offer any sort of defense.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
They will distract, deflect, distort and dissemble.
They'll engage in whataboutism and name-calling.
They'll call the trial "unconstitutional," even though the Senate decided it wasn't.
They won't engage with the facts.
"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.
A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.
He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
Oral argument in scheduled for January 21 at 3 pm in this case & will be telephonic. To listen, call 1-800-768-2983, code: 2640561#. Alternate phone numbers if the toll-free number gives you trouble: 1-907-206-2349 or 1-913-904-9867 or 1-212-231-3884.
— Alaska Court System (@AlaskaCourt) January 20, 2021
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
We are live!
Good evening everyone! Welcome to the Year 2021 and the first KP Social Media Discussion of the year. Today we are gonna discuss the concept of digital identity and the legal issues it raises.
It is not news that the fourth industrial revolution has led to many novel innovations on how everyone lives their lives.
Most operations in life can now be done digitally since the rise of the digital age and social networking, and since the Corona Virus mandated lockdowns most social interactions from work to school to parties, weddings and funerals are done digitally.
In Nigeria, there is a ramped up pressure to create a digital profile for every Nigerian through the National Identity Card Scheme which is now operated by the Federal Ministry of Communications and Digital Economy.
Our Social Media Discussions are Back!
— Kenna Partners (@Kenna_Partners) January 13, 2021
Today our topic is: Digital Identity and the Law
Join the Conversation on Twitter by 5PM! pic.twitter.com/TbbqMMQbLc
Good evening everyone! Welcome to the Year 2021 and the first KP Social Media Discussion of the year. Today we are gonna discuss the concept of digital identity and the legal issues it raises.
It is not news that the fourth industrial revolution has led to many novel innovations on how everyone lives their lives.
Most operations in life can now be done digitally since the rise of the digital age and social networking, and since the Corona Virus mandated lockdowns most social interactions from work to school to parties, weddings and funerals are done digitally.
In Nigeria, there is a ramped up pressure to create a digital profile for every Nigerian through the National Identity Card Scheme which is now operated by the Federal Ministry of Communications and Digital Economy.
Why Secession Won't Work - A Thread:
1. It's an outdated idea from a time when the country didn't have every square inch occupied with entrenched infrastructure.
2. Every angry person who wants to secede is surrounded by millions of others that don't.
3. There is no separate area of America for the angry minority to move to alone, because #2. You can't force millions out of their jobs and lives to claim a geographical area.
4. People screaming for secession don't understand the umbrella of comforts and protections they live
under. Infrastructure, healthcare, military treaties, all of which will have to be restarted and renegotiated from a position of weakness, with a fraction of our country's population. Wide open to attack, invasion, and denial of service by surrounding countries.
5. The logistical nightmare of filling the needed job roles that make a society function. Like your job in America? Have fun taking a job you hate because Secessionland needs menial laborers more than you need to be happy.
6. And speaking of creature comforts -
Better hope that Starbucks, restaurants, auto manufacturers, internet providers, and other modern services are willing to do business with a struggling, impoverished new nation - again, bargaining from a position of weakness. They don't just magically exist in your new country.
1. It's an outdated idea from a time when the country didn't have every square inch occupied with entrenched infrastructure.
2. Every angry person who wants to secede is surrounded by millions of others that don't.
The @TexasGOP is out with a statement in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, all but calling for secession:
— Adam Kelsey (@adamkelsey) December 12, 2020
\u201cPerhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.\u201d pic.twitter.com/4bB3gk88t4
3. There is no separate area of America for the angry minority to move to alone, because #2. You can't force millions out of their jobs and lives to claim a geographical area.
4. People screaming for secession don't understand the umbrella of comforts and protections they live
under. Infrastructure, healthcare, military treaties, all of which will have to be restarted and renegotiated from a position of weakness, with a fraction of our country's population. Wide open to attack, invasion, and denial of service by surrounding countries.
5. The logistical nightmare of filling the needed job roles that make a society function. Like your job in America? Have fun taking a job you hate because Secessionland needs menial laborers more than you need to be happy.
6. And speaking of creature comforts -
Better hope that Starbucks, restaurants, auto manufacturers, internet providers, and other modern services are willing to do business with a struggling, impoverished new nation - again, bargaining from a position of weakness. They don't just magically exist in your new country.
