Officially released today: my new @yalepress book assessing Justice Scalia’s legacy and the future of his ideas and style on the Supreme Court amazon.com/Justice-Contra…
Here are some recent opeds I've written about Justice Scalia's legacy, with more to come. The first @washingtonpost on Justice Scalia as a neo-Trumpian populist disruptor Antonin Scalia’s disruption of the Supreme Court’s ways is here to stay, washingtonpost.com/news/postevery…
Here's an @latimesopinion piece on how Justice Scalia helped pave the way for our thinking about justices as partisan celebrities, and why the current Justice Ginsburg tour is problematic latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/…
Here's a piece at @thenlj looking at how the Supreme Court Justices are still fighting about Justice Scalia's "textualist" approach to reading statutes, and how Scalia's influence in death may be growing law.com/nationallawjou…
And here's a piece @Slate about how Justice Scalia had it right about how to think about laws banning political speech at or near polling places (an issue pending again before #SCOTUS this term): slate.com/news-and-polit…
Anyway, the book on Justice Scalia's legacy is now available at @amazon, and also on @audible audiobook and for @AmazonKindle. If you read the book and like it, please consider posting a review! amazon.com/Justice-Contra…
First airing of interview with @adamliptak and Sue Bloch about Justice Scalia's legacy on @cspan@booktv will be Saturday, Mar. 24 at 4:30 pm eastern. Tune in.
For those questioning whether Ed Whelan may not be acting in good faith in his current role, here's my own unrelated interaction with him. The “Whelan Way:” Ed Whelan’s Bad Faith and Nasty Attack on My Book on Justice Scalia’s Legacy" electionlawblog.org/?p=98592
Real question here is if Ed is the lone ranger here or this is was vetted with his Federalist Society/Trump Administration/Judicial Confirmation Network allies. I'd bet on lone ranger because this is both loony AND counterproductive (makes case for FBI investigation compelling)
I just cannot see the rational calculation that accusing another man of attempted rape who travelled in the same social circles could actually help bring any wavering Republicans to vote for Kavanaugh.
If Cohen pleads guilty to bank fraud related to his taxi medallion business, that doesn't implicate Trump.
But if Cohen pleads guilty in connection with campaign finance case, that could directly implicate Trump /1
If Cohen conspired with Trump to make payments to Stormy Daniels in order to help the campaign, then they both could potentially be liable for Cohen making unreported, excessive in-kind contributions to the campaign (and perhaps other charges) /2
As I explained most recently in this @Slate piece, the question turns on motive, and it appears that prosecutors recently found good evidence of Cohen's motive which could subject him to criminal liability /3 slate.com/news-and-polit…
On this Independence Day, when we celebrate the U.S. as a democracy and as we await a Scalia-like successor to Justice Kennedy to be nominated for #SCOTUS, some thoughts on how the Court could set the cause of voting rights back significantly in the years to come: /1
The first way that the Court can negatively affect voting rights is by holding that democracy-enhancing laws like the Voting Rights Act or campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional. The second way is by upholding state laws making it harder to register and vote. /2
In the first category, at the top of my list is that #SCOTUS with a fifth hard conservative on race could either hold that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is an unconstitutional racial classification or interpret it so weekly it dies death by 1,000 cuts /3
That is crazy.
To begin with if it is campaign related, it would be an unreported loan to the campaign from Cohen.
Then it would be an unreported expenditure.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @pbump view original on Twitter
It also could implicate problems with fraud in relation to the reasons for the home equity loan, but that's outside my area.
If the campaign is paying Cohen's legal fees now, on grounds that the Stormy Daniels issue is campaign related, then it is harder to argue that the initial payment (in the heat of the campaign) was also not campaign related.