Joe Bingham

Attorney. "Cultish right wing hack" - Norman Ornstein.

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

We will pry racial segregation out of the last democrat's cold dead hands.

[Chris “Law Dork” Geidner @chrisgeidner]

This is truly one of the worst things the court has done — both in terms of legitimacy and in terms of the law — since I have been covering the court.

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@ckieser13 I think majority are really that dumb. Maybe even majority of lawyers. Dilan is sort of my ballpark for median and he doesn't get it.

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@Alex__Ebert @brettnolan The only right being denied in this case is the right to an intentionally discriminatory map. That "right" is what they just made no longer a thing!

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@Alex__Ebert @brettnolan No, that's precisely the right being accurately enforced!

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

You want to know how bad things got?

This segregationist was a United States Attorney.

[Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance]

“Republican friendly” is just a sanitized way of saying racist here https://t.co/2n53dwOofQ

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@Alex__Ebert @brettnolan So what are "the constitutional rights of voters under the 14th amendment" that are being "trumped" in OP?

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@Alex__Ebert @brettnolan The same conceptual impossibility that the court below incoherently found based on non-evidence in the face of dispositive counter evidence, even after they explained it the first time. It feels like you're experiencing the same glitch as the lower court 😅

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@Alex__Ebert @brettnolan If the lawmakers did in fact so discriminate, the plaintiffs will be able to produce a superior alternative. You are imagining a ~conceptual impossibility.

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@Alex__Ebert @brettnolan They sent it back, and the lower court screwed up the same way *again*. So they fixed it.

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@Alex__Ebert @brettnolan Callais abrogates that finding, right?

Those judges were wrong.

As a matter of logic (and now, thankfully, of law), there was insufficient evidence to support it. And there was strong evidence--the inability to produce a relevant alternative--against it).

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@srl Please leave your UK tabloid standards in the UK.

[Orin Kerr @OrinKerr]

FWIW, the consensus here and at Bluesky, among those responding who think 18 year terms can be enacted this way by ordinary legislation, seems to be that the President and Congress are actually free to eliminate the Supreme Court as a voting body entirely this way whenever they want.

On that view, at least as I follow it, the constitutional requirement that "the judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court" doesn't require a Supreme Court that has any actual judicial power at all, but rather is met by pure form— as long as there is someone called a Justice, and that person gets a salary, then Article III is satisfied even if no person has any power to vote in any Supreme Court case and therefore the Supreme Court effectively doesn't exist. On that view, the idea of 18 year terms followed by a "senior justice" role is just a lesser power that is part of the broader power to eliminate the Supreme Court as a voting body.

I am just a country Fourth Amendment lawyer, not a sophisticated constitutional theorist, but that strikes me as a strange reading of the Constitution. I would think that the phrase "the judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court" implies that the there has to be a body that actually decides cases and controversies, not just that there has to be a form of it. The idea of "the judicial power" seems to imply a power for judges to have power to decide cases as judges, not for them to get titles and draw salaries. But at least now I have a better sense of the argument, and where we disagree.

[Eric W. @EWess92]

Senator Warner is an attorney, so this post is made in bad faith. Virginia's long-shot request relied on misrepresentations about what the Virginia Supreme Court did and the disfavored Independent State Legislature theory. Alabama relied on its own 2 week old Supreme Court win!

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@EditrixLane You should learn to read an opinion, I promise it is more fun than this schizo bit

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

Virginia isn't permitted to use an illegal map, and Alabama isn't required to use an illegal (and racist) map.

These are consistent holdings.

[Britni Danielle @BritniDWrites]

So Virginia can't use their new map, which was approved by voters. But Alabama can?

But sure, SCOTUS isn't "political"

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@mike_frags Good to know. I thought maybe he was that dumb.

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@EditrixLane You're the one mad they don't get to use the racist map

[Patrick T. Brown @PTBwrites]

Nobody does it like Ross

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@VecchTweets @QuinHillyer @ElectionCenter_ Everything Hillyer said is independently false regardless. Why do people make this stuff up when Google is there

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

I Am Toxic Empathy 😔

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

Robin D'Angelo is a repugnant racist, and America would be better off if she were never born.

I empathize with her way too much to watch more than 60 seconds of this, let alone enjoy it. It's WAY too painful.

Why it's so funny to me when libs project their empathy deficiency.

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

Robin DiAngelo has been MIA ever since I had this heart to heart conversation with her. It’s a shame. I really thought we had a breakthrough moment here.

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

I've never been able to stomach more than a minute or so of this doc at a time. I support it and am glad others can enjoy it!

I'm too empathetic to sit through it, and I recognize that as a moral failure on my part.

[Joe Bingham @teafortillerman]

@EditrixLane Callais explained why that was wrong, and now they've explained it again.

I understand that you still can't get it, but I remain hopeful that the inferior judges responsible will catch on by round three.