I recently witnessed a significant "family meeting" type discussion in /r/law after the Fanni Willis debacle. Experienced trial attorneys making politically agnostic observations about potential impacts to the case were being down voted into oblivion for the mere act of being politically agnostic and acknowledging even the possibility that Willis could have acted in a way that could negatively impact the case. The adults in the room circled the wagons. The consensus was that any thread that achieves a minimum critical mass of participants will attract partisan non-experts whose interest in facts and reality is secondary to their interest in every situation conforming to their preconceived notions.
This post is one of the bad legal takes on this sub that it purports to call out.
“You can think that the stakes are so high here that the justices should depart from textualism and original public meaning to read the phrase more broadly. You can upmarsey all the people who say Trump should lose”
Just read Baude's extensive paper. Disqualifying trump likely follows the text original intent and original meaning of the 14th amendment. Pretending disqualifying Trump is “progressive” constitutional interpretation is disingenuous and misleading
This article combined with the Federalist society argument is not a novel “progressive” constitutional theory.
There is ample historical evidence that the president was considered an officer at the time of drafting and ratification.
Yeah, it's hard to take posts like this seriously.
We are posting in a midwit thread on God
!Neolibs, do you think you know more than the supreme court?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Where my !r-slurs at?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If redditors don't get their way they'll just say the conservative majority is corrupt. We've seen it over and over.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context