JarlCarl

UW Law School 3L; Supreme Court enthusiast; speedrunning aficionado.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

Speedrunning has called my name again! https://t.co/1ku4NAqZ7Q

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@blankslate2017 At 97:46? I don't think that's offside since he doesn't participate in the play (he isn't the one passed to/draw attention from the keeper etc.). I don't think this is offside, though I'm not an expert.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@blankslate2017 These are good points; I think for me the signalling earlier this year that the Fed is different + letting her keep her job in the meantime points towards good news, though I'm with you in not being too confident.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@LSXYZ9 This is pretty normal for the top chess players (Magnus is usually real low cause the guy is just chilling) in especially these faster time controls.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@BStarsigns @Zprtr1 Boerne explicitly states that it's up to the courts to define rights under the 14th amendment and if Congress isn't saying there's a right to abortion, they can't ban states from regulating it.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@BStarsigns @Zprtr1 I'm with you that it's a commercial activity (and generally on the policy), but if states can validly ban abortion, Congress can't pass a law that says states can't interfere with abortion providers. The commerce clause allows Congress to ban things, not guarantee them.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@BStarsigns @Zprtr1 Those are both examples of a negative law, banning cannabis use and banning late term abortions (Carhart analyzed under Roe/Casey). Proactively guaranteeing a right to abortion is prohibited by City of Boerne v. Flores as its effectively finding a right, rather than regulating.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@BStarsigns @Zprtr1 I would imagine the commerce clause could be used to ban abortions (since products travel past states lines), but I'm not sure how it could be used to affirmatively legalize abortion in all states, regardless of the state laws.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@JLevering4 Chourio called for interference, not obstruction! Obstruction on the defense, interference on the offense.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@dpf11100 @elchicanomarine Uh yeah that would appear to be the case. We'll see where this goes, but currently the Gov. seems to be uninterested in bringing him home, despite the Court's order.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@dpf11100 @elchicanomarine That appears to be the current status quo, though I'm sure there will be more litigation. SCOTUS' ruling was a bit vague (as they tend to be) and the Gov. is running with that and sorta trying to delay. There will certainly be more litigation now that the gov. is resisting

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@dpf11100 @elchicanomarine That part is sort of unclear. The Government (well, mostly Trump) says that they cannot get him back and El Salvador says they won't give him back. Concerning, to be sure, especially after the Gov. was ordered to get him back.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@dpf11100 @elchicanomarine The Court ruled 9-0 that his due process rights were violated and ordered the government to facilitate his return! https://t.co/tYiDRxXYDK

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@dpf11100 @elchicanomarine If the Court keeps him there? That would be very not good, though I'm pretty optimistic that they will allow the District Court's order to go back into effect. If I had to guess I'd go 6-3 or 5-4 (I think they may or may not peel off Kavanaugh)

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@Terriblerevor @elementgermani3 @elchicanomarine Yes, but the entire court (or, well, most of it probably) speaking and ordering his return is a lot more powerful and compelling and will come with a Court Opinion than the Chief denying a stay or the court summarily denying a stay. It'll take an additional few days though

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@elementgermani3 @elchicanomarine I don't think that the court should be acting outside of its normal procedures just because the answer is obvious. The CJ ordered very rapid briefing and I imagine they'll decide this week.

[JarlCarl @JarlCarl]

@EthanHiguain @blankslate2017 While I agree it's concerning, the dissent isn't on the merits and more on the stay pending appeal since the government isn't likely to be able to get its money back if it prevails on appeal.