Tim Margheim

Aggressively scout-minded predominately conservative, classically liberal Christian. Insists on nuance & common ground; opposes squishiness.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@ConLawWarrior @TimothySandefur @ConLawWarrior I just read the fuller opinion.

I think the majority got it right , and Jackson misread why they were discounting the Black Codes example. They gave enough principle.

But what she said in those highlighted parts still seems exactly right, as far as it goes.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@ConLawWarrior @TimothySandefur Maybe a principle is: When the legislatures were blatantly violating some parts of the Constitution (equal protection), we don't need to give them any benefit of the doubt on whether they were trying not to violate others (the 2nd Am).

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@whignewtons Consider: At the hypothetical extreme of "Noem didn't even send an email or have a single conversation" for the required consultation, is there really no review of that?

If it required notice-and-comment before determination, and that didn't happen, would there be no review?

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@whignewtons i.e. required process vs substance.

Now, Courts shouldn't do barred subst review masquerading as allowed process review. And maybe they did here?

I haven't read the case yet. But if they held there's *never* review of process leading to determinations... that's sketchy.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@whignewtons Sic burn.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@tally8076 @kyledcheney Based on my memory and then some quick searching right now to confirm:

Article 3 chords have had their jurisdiction severely limited for *removal* orders. But not for habeas corpus challenge of *detention* orders.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@whignewtons Shouldn't we say voters shielded us all from *finding out* how much SCOTUS shielded Trump?

DOJ reindicted, but we never found out how it would have stood up to challenge under the SCOTUS ruling.

But also yes, SCOTUS absolutely shielded Biden, and that's underappreciated.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@whignewtons Would you say that's your number two problem right now?

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@jmhorp The punchline: This chart is not adjusted for inflation.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@OrinKerr @whignewtons Never the twain shall meat!

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@MarkAllenbaugh @Quilly_Dilly @SCOTUSblog It's fine from my laptop, but shows the warning about expired domains from my phone.

There might be a problem with a fixed DNS record still getting propagated, so different people see different things. If so hopefully that will resolve itself as caches get updated.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@HoffProf @adam_shniderman I can't wait to read it and find out if there's a second shrub!

Only slightly higher.

So you get a two layer effect, with a little path running down the middle!

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@HoffProf @adam_shniderman Ugh, low-hanging fruit.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@ajrichar @RandyEBarnett

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@megbasham @jwsherrod @NeilShenvi It could be that "Neil wants to help people avoid taking what Vance said in a bad direction (b/c he thinks it happens enough that it's important to say, when Vance is raising the profile of that idea)".

Right?

So why jump to "Neil is accusing Vance of getting it wrong himself"?

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@espinsegall @WilliamBaude @sherifgirgis @whignewtons @DavidAFrench @kateashaw1 I'm talking about, "applying original legal standards faithfully can *sometimes* lead to results the authors wouldn't have liked or expected".

Do you really think affirming that bare possibility is "living con"? To a degree that justifies "we can't have meaningful conv."?

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@espinsegall @WilliamBaude @sherifgirgis @whignewtons @DavidAFrench @kateashaw1 (Some originalists make that mistake!)

An author can (sometimes) write out a principle in a way that is clear, & not realize that the implications of what they've written will have consequences they don't anticipate and wouldn't like, even when applied with perfect faithfulness.

[Tim Margheim @jugulum]

@espinsegall @WilliamBaude @sherifgirgis @whignewtons @DavidAFrench @kateashaw1 IIRC you've said you don't accept that distinction. Your conclusion would make sense in that light.

But to put it in a slightly spiky way: If you think the authors of a law are *always* authoritative on how the meaning should apply, you don't understand how language works.