TR

iustitiam cole et pietatem // felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas // “You’re not supposed to but you have to like the Irish”

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@PanasonicDX4500 Can’t believe the guy named Markwayne from Oklahoma is a dipshit

[Seamus Hughes @SeamusHughes]

oh.

https://t.co/InguSmlNsf

[microplastics nanobubbler @facetedcarapace]

Rare win for Meritocracy in a country that loves giving rich people whatever they want

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

Oh little marco what could have been

[Orin Kerr @OrinKerr]

I sometimes read that the Supreme Court dramatically expanded police power by inventing stop and frisk law in Terry v. Ohio. But it seems to me you can't talk about stop and frisk without discussing the decline of arrests for vagrancy—and the invalidation of traditional vagrancy laws—at just about the same time as the creation of stop and frisk law.

As Risa Golubuff explains in her excellent book Vagrant Nation, for most of American history people acting suspiciously could just be arrested under the vagrancy laws. And they could be fully searched then, as part of the arrest.

The relationship between vagrancy enforcement and Fourth Amendment law is complicated. But one simplified version of it is that the Court blocked the greater police power of arrests and complete searches under vagrancy laws and then created a narrower version of the authority, less subject to abuses because it had more of a certain standard, under stop and frisk law.

In the present day, a lot of people tend to look back on this history from the perspective that it's obvious that of course there's no power to arrest under vagrancy laws, and of course temporary stops are seizures and of course frisks are searches, such that the big change is seen to be reasonableness balancing and the reasonable suspicion standard—a balance that is seen to lessen Fourth Amendment protections by having a standard for searches and seizures less than probable cause.

I think that's how Terry is usually taught: The Fourth Amendment used to prevent stop and frisk, and the Supreme Court gutted them. But it seems to me that view incorporates a lot of modern assumptions that the history doesn't support. My sense, at least.

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@RespectfulMemes Too close to home

[Dr Helen Ingram @drhingram]

“I am the Ghost of Christmas Future Imperfect Conditional” said the Spirit. “I bring news of what would have been going to happen, if you were not to have been going to change your ways.”

[NFL Memes @NFLMemes]

Rashee Rice finally understand what it feels like to get unexpectedly hit at a high rate of speed and have the man responsible leave the scene

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@AnthonyMKreis Silly to shirk from this debate. As you point out, you’re right. Should be pretty easy to win. But your dismissiveness—characteristic of academia—just fuels their fire. You’re a constitutional scholar for god’s sake. What else do you have to do?

[Sean T at RCP @SeanTrende]

I think the majority in Wong Kim Ark is pretty good on this. It's just that debate on this gets asinine very quickly. The 14th really does have a carveout for "subject to the jurisdiction," which meaning is not clear on its face. 1/

[Sean T at RCP @SeanTrende]

In other words, this idea isn't frivolous. I think it's very much *wrong* for a whole host of reasons, but the people who think this is an obvious case are the ones who haven't followed the arguments carefully here.

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@AnthonyMKreis @SeanTrende has it right, imo

[Sean T at RCP @SeanTrende]

This is good on the birthright citizenship debate. I think, given the logic of Wong Kim Ark, the citizenship clause extends to children of people in the country illegally, but people who just say "ReAd tEh CoNsTiTuTiOn" have not, in fact, read the 14th Amendment.

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@AnthonyMKreis It’s unhelpful to the manifestly correct side of this debate to assert there isn’t one. To the layman, their contentions appear plausible. But I’ve yet to see their argument not get eviscerated when engaged on the merits. See, e.g., https://t.co/j8Byq42dT8. So, why not engage?

[Sean T at RCP @SeanTrende]

This is good on the birthright citizenship debate. I think, given the logic of Wong Kim Ark, the citizenship clause extends to children of people in the country illegally, but people who just say "ReAd tEh CoNsTiTuTiOn" have not, in fact, read the 14th Amendment.

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@grok @SeamusHughes @grok I think you are wrong. Are you sure that isn’t Calisto?

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@RHyperboreo @suddenxfear Funniest tweet I’ve read in weeks. Makes it funnier if you’re being serious tbh.

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@BarExamTutor Feel like she could have 3 JDs by now

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@SenMullin @VP @POTUS @WhiteHouse @SenHydeSmith @SenSheehyPress @PressSec Bro I’m sorry I still can’t get over the fact that your name is “Markwayne” 😂

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@ZacksJerryRig https://t.co/zG4NvCmQPG

[TR @_LQCincinnatus]

@PanasonicDX4500 Can’t believe the guy named Markwayne from Oklahoma is a dipshit