isn't textualism, but it can be originalism.

Originalism isn't textualism.

Originalism means "you have to interpret the text everytime it's not-obvious , as it would have been interpreted by the people who wrote it and who voted on it".

here a paper explaining the difference between the 2

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....20same%20thing.

its neither. the drafters didnt need it to be interpreted. they knew. zebulon vance was barred from office until amnesty was passed. they didnt need an extra determination.

Another 9-0 decision on a other fairly complex topic, this time the right (or lack thereof) of a politician (or public official in general) to block people on social media.

Looks like the kind of nuanced, well thought opinion we do expect by actual experts on an actually unclear topic constitutionally

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/p...-social-media/

So much for polarization in everything I guess

9-0 decisions are much more common than the general public imagines.

the case against mifepristone seems doomed, but it will be very relevant anyway depending on if/how scotus will address several questions arising from this case

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...ments-00149166

Yet even 9-0 decisions are blamed on the "conservative court"

No they aren't

Funny, I've never heard this.

This is good

https://unherd.com/newsroom/will-the...-trump-ruling/

And my Facebook and Twitter feeds were full of people blaming the conservative court for the Trump decision

This is your proof? A few liberals and a staunch conservative predicting before the decision that Trump would lose? (FWIW, I never agreed with Luttig on this point.)

I can't speak to your Facebook friends and the people you follow on Twitter, so whatever as to that point.

I didn't see any SCOTUS commentators blaming that decision on a "conservative" Court.

Still convinced of this rococo?

Yep. I said there was some chance that the SCOTUS would narrow the DC Circuit's reasoning. After the argument, I would rate that possibility as more likely than not. I still think there is a 100% chance that the Court will reject the argument that Trump advanced in the lower courts that a president enjoys blanket immunity for all actions taken during the time that he is president. I haven't read a transcript, but based on the reporting, it sounds like Trump's attorneys more or less have conceded this point.

I do think there is an excellent chance that the ruling will result in delay because there are likely to be additional decisions at the lower court level about whether specific allegations relate to "official acts." But there is zero chance that the SCOTUS rules in a way that substantively eviscerates the prosecution's case.

Trump's argument below was that presidential immunity meant that he couldn't be prosecuted even if he shot his secretary in the head five minutes before he left office. There was no way that the Supreme Court would ever endorse that view of presidential immunity.

well if part of the indictment gets thrown off because some of the alleged acts are covered by presidential immunity that's not just a narrow decision on the scope of presidential immunity that doesn't affect trump, that's material to trump case and not only because of delay, it gets off some charges.

ofc the full immunity from everything done in the 4 years was never going to exist, but let's see what's if anything, the court decides is covered by actual immunity.

all Public communication might for example (or not).

btw the "can't be prosecuted for anything" was just one of many lines of the defense

It depends.

Very unlikely imo.

I know. I'm the one who actually read the DC Circuit opinion, not you.

I actually did? they had a lot of fun mocking his thesis everywhere in those pages.

let's see what SCOTUS thinks of that as well

The SCOTUS won't care at all about the tone of the DC Circuit opinion. That's irrelevant to the legal issue.

Unfortunately many people underestimated the partisan ship of the current court. (I didn't.)

Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and at least 4 SC justices would use any excuse they could to let him off.

dream scenario is a 5-4 with gorsuch writing the opinion and slapping the court of appeal for sloppiness and unwarranted mockery (and a lot of legal mistakes).

can a man dream?

Why stop there. Why not hope for a 9-0 decision, followed by a complete dismantling of the judiciary?

Just heard excerpts of the recent SC hearings on the trail.

The main Trump lawyer said that the president may be immune from assassinating his political opponents!

President Biden should immediately order the assassination of that lawyer, seems like that would send a good signal to get the SC back into the real world. If it seems necessary that more is needed, tell the "justices" appointed by Trump that he will have their grandchildren tortured in front of them if they rule that the president can do anything he likes.

Supreme Court 'openly colluding' with Trump

The one thing I find so difficult to stomach in all of this -
is the self-satisfied, smug, 'you can't touch us', expressions on these men's faces.
It says everything about how they see themselves - not an once of humility or
grace in any of them. Jurors they may be, servants of the constitution, they are not.

The last king that believed in total immunity was separated from his head in 1649.

There is plenty to be concerned about with this Supreme Court, but this video is a disgrace.

I’d delete this asap. Mods as well

Too late, you're part of the conspiracy now you've quoted it. I'll send you some commissary money to ADX.

You clearly haven't been paying attention if you think this is the case. The vote to let Congress see 1/6 documents was 8-1 and every justice has signaled they are completely disinterested in "absolute" immunity that Trump claims.

Trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue for shitz and gigglez, every one of them will say it's a "private act" in the legal construct they seem to be building and allow a conviction to go forward.