BadLegalTakesplainer

Trying to explain what's wrong with the worst legal takes on Twitter.

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

Notice: I am not actually a lawyer. I have a Master's in economics that focused on Law & Econ.

Most bad legal takes do not require a law degree to explain. Even if I were a lawyer, I would still be fallible. I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong, & I'm not the last word in arguments.

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes I'm curious. Does anyone have any idea how this could be misconstrued as a declaration of innocence? I mean, the operative verb phrase is "will be considered." Which sentence are they misreading, and how?

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes Context: This document means: "We will review this habeas corpus petition in conjunction with some other related things. The government needs to file a response." Nothing more.

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes Context: This is Sovereign Citizen belief based on misquotation of court cases. You can read their reasoning and a refutation here: https://t.co/ugf37OYXaH

I haven't heard a scintilla of evidence that any charges have ever been dropped based on this legal reasoning.

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@ranjowe49 @BadLegalTakes It's usually impermissible to fire government employees for speech that they made in their capacity as private citizens. Summary of case law here: https://t.co/jdbeWlMaHa

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes Context: The Chevron Doctrine required courts to defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. It's been around since the 80s.

This guy's thinking of the supremacy clause in the US Constitution. It's been around since the 1780s.

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes This is all from the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990. The structure of the entire US government could not have been established 200 years after its establishment, nor could it have been so radically changed by a statute rather than a constitutional amendment. 6/6

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes It's defined like this because these are the only parts of the US government that can act to recover a judgment or debt, or seek a remedy. To be able to do that, you have to do things like create contracts with private parties. Not every part of the gov't does so. 5/6

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes Context: This is called fraudulent conveyance. Hey, look, there are federal laws saying it won't help at all when the actual lenders come: https://t.co/hmxP0xCmE6

I doubt a judge would be fooled by this even if it weren't confessed on the internet beforehand.

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes Context: C'mon, you don't even have to scroll down to get the right answer.

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes Context: Most laws have a mens rea requirement and it is not about whether an action was believed to be *morally* wrong.

It's usually about whether something was done by accident, through negligence, or with purpose. Empathy or moral agreement are not an element.

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes That would allow them to do *literally any crime* with impunity. And it would apply to Democrat presidents about half the time.

I'll bet even a SCOTUS that's sympathetic to Trump wouldn't be willing to open that door.

[BadLegalTakesplainer @LegalTakesplain]

@BadLegalTakes Second, this interpretation would open the door to the presidency being a free-for-all for any and all crimes committed in the future.

If a president had a majority party in the Senate, he or she could break the law openly, be acquitted by the Senate, and face no consequences.