poorly whorly

Manners are their own reward, gentlemen

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

You either die a Berniebro or you live long enough to see yourself become the Hillarybot

[Wajahat Ali @WajahatAli]

This is idiotic. Mainers had a choice between Platner and Mills. They chose Platner. How would Mills have defeated Collins? Also, Platner is still up. He would be rising if Democratic establishment hacks didn't continue to bring him down even now.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@shudnell @Zrbialk Want to place a wager on it?

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

Can someone share what the rumored Platner story that ostensibly is going to drop is? Journalists here are doing that insufferable thing where they brag about knowing what the story is in order to show how Savvy And In The Know they are, while refusing to say what it actually is.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@DrCsC51 Including a detail like that in the story probably means that the journalist has heard rumors to that effect but can’t confirm it yet

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@OrinKerr Well, Akhil Amar, among others, thinks that Congress essentially can strip the Supreme Court of ~all review function, so it isn’t a novel idea or one that only an uninformed person could have. And I hate to say it, but “that is a strange reading” isn’t much of a legal argument.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@Vibutler_ @AnthonyMKreis Wessan is a cheerleader, not a serious commentator. There is no set of facts under which he ever would say that someone arguing Kreis’ position makes a good argument.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@teafortillerman @dilanesper Nah I’ll just assume you’re a dumbass who says things without having an argument

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@teafortillerman @dilanesper No one’s obliged to ask you for your explanation, that is not how the practice of law works. You’re not a wise oracle on a mountain, no one is going to plead with you to share your reasoning. You’re obliged to provide it if you don’t want people to think you’re a loudmouth moron.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@teafortillerman @dilanesper At this point, you’ve repeatedly refused to explain your assertion. That tells me everything that I need to know.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@teafortillerman You misunderstand. If you don’t explain your assertion, no one’s obliged to ask for clarification, they can just assume you don’t have an argument. If you want people to think you do, the onus is on you to adduce it. No one needs to ask you to, they can just think you’re a fool.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@MattGlassman312 @Bencjacobs I meant just that in theory Congress could do it to this guy

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@teafortillerman @dilanesper Yup, I need my hand held, I’m not as brilliant as you

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@teafortillerman You haven’t explained why he’s wrong about there being inconsistency or why five isn’t a majority of nine. You’ve just made a bare, conclusory assertion in an obnoxious tone. Truly the least persuasive form of argument.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@SeanTrende @JoshMBlackman The rule that emerges is that under the Reconstruction Amendments, Congress can intrude upon state autonomy in ways that aren’t otherwise permissible. It’s not clear to me why that wouldn’t be true for the anticommandeering doctrine as well.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@SeanTrende @JoshMBlackman okay even though it isn’t permissible under Article I, Section 8 (Shelby County isn’t inconsistent). And in EEOC v. Wyoming, decided prior to Garcia, the Court indicates, albeit in dicta, that laws that otherwise would violate Usery are okay under the Reconstruction Amendments.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@JeremiahDJohns @NicoleOKing It’s almost unfathomably pathetic

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@SeanTrende @JoshMBlackman That seems like a different issue, though, no? Writ-of-erasure versus enjoining enforcement? I think the general rule is that in the narrow Elections Clause and Reconstruction Amendments contexts, states basically just aren’t sovereign, at least vis-a-vis the federal government.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@SeanTrende @JoshMBlackman autonomy that otherwise restrict Congress’s ability to boss states around simply do not apply. Although it hasn’t applied this principle in the anti-commandeering doctrine context specifically, I don’t see why the same principle wouldn’t apply.

[poorly whorly @poorlyreasoned]

@SeanTrende @JoshMBlackman I should be upfront-as best I’m aware, courts haven’t addressed this exact issue, so I’m reasoning from first principles here. But in both the Elections Clause and Reconstruction Amendments contexts, the Supreme Court has made clear as a general matter that the concerns for state