more evidence that conservative legal arguments are cover for partisanship as opposed to the long argued other way around there is no originalist or textualist argument for this, at all
It's too bad there wasn't a sniper close by when he visited the middle east in his casual blazer and khakis
This information alone drives me insane. They lie about everything and it doesn't matter: Ross announced the decision to add the question in March 2018. He said at the time that he was responding to a request from the Justice Department, which said the information was needed to enforce laws protecting minority voting rights. Later emails and depositions in the lawsuit showed Ross had discussed the issue with White House officials urging a crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Some showed he initiated contact with Justice Department officials, not the other way around.
I don’t know that Dems will win control of the senate, but any senator running for president and wants to talk about norms and not ending the filibuster, should look at this census ruling
The Court likely will vote on ideological lines, but l-o-fucking-l at inferring what it is going to do based on the oral argument.
I've read plenty of oral arguments and disagree with your dismissal that you cannot infer what the decision will be, especially with this partisan court. but okay
I think that one could predict a partisan break on the court because of the issue, but the fact that the justices asked questions about one of the arguments pleaded in the appellant's brief (and addressed by the amicus) doesn't mean that they're coopting that argument.
My favorite law professor was a DC appeals clerk and his favorite expression was the number of cases decided at oral argument was 0.
I would agree that very little changes at oral argument, but that you can see the writing on the wall at oral argument.
What to do about Sarah Sanders? White House reporters have a few ideas. https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...?utm_term=.1f13d1c2453b&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1 “I hope and trust that she understands why this is a big deal and why it matters to us and to her,” said Peter Baker, the veteran New York Times White House reporter, in an interview Monday. “A press secretary’s most important asset is credibility. If you don’t have that, there’s not much point. But we all make mistakes. The test is what you do about it to make things better.” Sanders hasn’t offered an apology or a public correction. Instead, she has gone on offense. After repeating the “heat of the moment” excuse during an interview on “Good Morning America,” she fired back, “I’m sorry that I wasn’t a robot like the Democrat Party that went out for 2½ years and repeated time and time again that there was definitely Russian collusion between the president and his campaign.”
No one is going to jail for being in contempt of Congress on behalf of the Administration that is responsible for prosecuting contempt charges.
...literally has done the opposite. I pointed this out the other day that debate mods will need to ask the question.
Today’s another one of those shitty days where you realize these people are probably going to get away with whatever they want to, but god damn there needs to be more of a fight. Why isn’t every Democrat demanding Barr resign?