Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

I’m with Balkin that interpretation by non-lawyers should be viewed as the *standard* case of interpretation, what interpretation is generally assumed to mean

1 4

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

It also suggests that SCOTUS is less likely than other courts to decide a case on partisan grounds which I just don’t think we have any evidence for. And in any event, there’s nothing on the face of the 14A that demands the modes of fact finding you’re presenting as palatable.

1

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

Your arguments are kind of jumping around; what I take you to be saying here is that it’s consequentially undesirable to read the Constitution so to allow other courts besides SCOTUS to make relevant factual findings under it but that’s how basically every case works.

1

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

The Colorado courts did determine an insurrection took place so it’s simply not true that there was no legal determination to that effect. I’m not sure what you mean by “effective.” SCOTUS didn’t pass on that question, just said (apropos of very little) that Congress had to act to disqualify.

1

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

I see, and I understand the desirability of some process or another to formalize the status of having “engaged in insurrection.” But one could argue, quite credibly, that the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment is itself sufficient, and the text doesn’t contemplate any additional process.

1 1

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

You’re conflating what’s required for impeachment and what’s required for 14A disqualification. I don’t have settled views on the matter but nothing Andy said is constitutionally implausible.

2 4

Reposted by Jacob Schriner-Briggs

Carolyn Shapiro @cshaplaw.bsky.social · 1d

I wrote about how SCOTUS facilitates autocratic legalism, as Scheppele describes, by invoking democratic values while ruling in anti-democratic ways, in my piece Democracy Hypocrisy.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

1 3 12

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

Amicus brief filed by admirals and generals in case concerning whether POTUS can send federalized National Guard into Illinois got me today

1 4

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

Please, someone fluent in Sabermetrics tell me if this is good

1

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

Totally. Honestly, I think my throat clearing was too optimistic. The whole thing is an exercise in Overton Window shifting and I'm not convinced judges are immune to that. It's good we have a First Amendment, good that (some of) its doctrine can slow stuff down, but things are quite bad.

5

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

More simply, it is inherently bad and inherently grave to have the most high ranking officials in the executive branch speaking like this. We don't need to hash out the power of law to stay their hand for that to be true.

1 2 6

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

That said, evaluating what they'll actually be able to do is secondary insofar as (1) this entire spectacle should be offensive on its own terms to anyone who values basic freedoms and (2) if they *could* do everything they repeatedly threaten, I have no doubt they *would.*

1 1 6

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

I feel similarly about this as I did the flag burning EO: a lot of this is pure performance if only because swaths of First Amendment doctrine is against them and they lack the sociological legitimacy to overcome that doctrine or the courts more generally.

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 1d

Trump to a right-wing influencer: "Do you know the name of any of the funders? Because if you do, I'd like you to give them to Kash or Pam or Kristi as soon as you can. That's all of you. These are people that do not have good intentions for the country. That's treasonous, probably."

3 1 12

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 1d

I've been writing

The Article’s most important upshot, then, is that the First Amendment cannot be entrusted to resolve the crisis of free speech because its most influential steward has helped usher in the deeper political crisis of which that crisis is a part. Recently designated the “Conservative Warren Court,” the Roberts Court’s merits jurisprudence has proven exceedingly hostile to economic and political democracy and exceedingly enamored with unaccountable executive power. The First Amendment’s potential is limited because its legal effects are governed by a Court that, rather than resist competitive authoritarianism, has helped bring it to our door.

2 2 8

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 2d

Very excited to read!

1

Reposted by Jacob Schriner-Briggs

James Fallows Tierney @jamesftierney.bsky.social · 3d

And let us not forget

1 2

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 3d

A lot of Nomos and Narrative here. A lot of Violence and the Word!

1 2

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 3d

Bluesky at night, poster's delight

1

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 3d

This post brought to you by internal projection (barely resisting the urge to post about Pete Buttigieg). I am the problem here.

8

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 3d

As a left-progressive-anti-anti-liberal with SocDem characteristics, I'm appalled

1 5

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 3d

"Oh, you thought 2020 Twitter was bad? What if I told you every conceivable sect of left-liberalism found a shared online network to sharpen their ideological differences and amass internecine grievances years in advance of 2028?"

1 9

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 3d

The Democratic presidential primary is going to be an absolute nightmare on this site.

13 5 59

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 3d

I think this is both likely constitutional and also a terrible decision.

5

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 3d

I don’t know enough to speak confidently as to the specifics, but “time, place, and manner restrictions” on speech, rather than those based on content or viewpoint, fly by more easily when subject to legal challenge. This is clearly a TPM restriction, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were upheld.

1

Jacob Schriner-Briggs @jschrinerbriggs.bsky.social · 3d

What are we doing here?

1