skittering

[skittering @skittering97]

@lowkeyGPT @1848ers @dilanesper I just referenced it because it's just one of the more memorable comments about the Fifth. And one of the few times Trump has been correct.

[skittering @skittering97]

@1848ers @dilanesper But I'm still allowed to conclude his refusal to testify is sus. A jury should be able to infer this refusal as evidence against him. Neither of those things "compel" testimony from him.

(I have no strong opinions abt Fauci himself, I just have strong opinions about 5th amdt)

[skittering @skittering97]

@1848ers @dilanesper Let's look at the text then. "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

So Fauci has a right to refuse to testify and the gvmt can't e.g. torture testimony from him. That would be compulsion

[skittering @skittering97]

@1848ers @dilanesper Ok and?

[skittering @skittering97]

@dilanesper They would remember their original jurisdiction

[skittering @skittering97]

@ClarenceMaximus I think the text is plain though. There's only one meaning of "jurisdiction" in the dictionary. If you can be arrested by the police, you're under US jdx.

And bc the text is unambiguous, there's no need for history. The lawyers combing through history just look desperate

[skittering @skittering97]

@dilanesper Didn't Erie abolish this? ATS conferred jurisdiction and (general) common law provided cause of action. Erie abolished the latter leaving an empty statute.

Roberts and ACB both asked questions about this in argument.

[skittering @skittering97]

@SCOTUS_gami Principal opinions (incl majorities) are only compared to other principal opinions. That way principal solo dissents don't get mixed up with solo concurrences as happened here.

Non-principal opinions get compared to everything, as you currently do.

[skittering @skittering97]

@SCOTUS_gami I suggest an alternate scheme. It's a bit more complex but still clean.

1. Opinions whose justices are a subset of those in another opinion (incl the majority) are "non-principal"

2. Everything else is a "principal" opinion

[skittering @skittering97]

@SCOTUS_gami @steve_vladeck Was the Wash U database insufficient? I thought that's what Lee, Epstein, MQ scores use

[skittering @skittering97]

@mike_frags Well, you could get a classical pick, or you might get a DJT personal lawyer (Bove/Smith/Schwartz).

I'm sure the latter group could turn out to be superb — but I can see why some judges are wary.

[skittering @skittering97]

@dilanesper @OrinKerr he has apparently hired clerks for OT2026 however https://t.co/eDF7Du9jaF

[skittering @skittering97]

@dilanesper The more common criticism I see of CU is that it was first case to say that money is speech. Which is ... also untrue.

[skittering @skittering97]

@dilanesper I don't like how Justice "no such thing as SDP" Thomas is happy to cite Troxel (and concurred in that decision). Scalia dissent in Troxel was completely correct.

[skittering @skittering97]

@dilanesper They also faked the request (from "Stewart and Mike"). Adam Unikowsky did a good write-up

https://t.co/asB5B8fW1d
https://t.co/P1tfQ4nK0q

I even agree with 303 Creative on the merits! But man that case should never have been granted, it was suspect as hell.

[skittering @skittering97]

@dilanesper There's certified questions as well

[skittering @skittering97]

@dilanesper I normally like and respect your takes, so I'll assume you're having a rough morning

Being told sgp is "autocratic" and not a democracy when I see: parliamentary coverage; election billboards; gvmt trying to be popular & moderate; and an election tomorrow is v strange to me

[skittering @skittering97]

@dilanesper I'm not claiming it deserves a 9.

(I don't know enough to be precise, but 6 feels low. Only recent incident I recall is an arrest for racist comments online - which we see in UK too!)

My point is Sgp is mostly liberal and democratic - same way you defend Israel.