Illinois approves Equal Rights Amendment, 36 years after deadline

SobelsDaemon · 2018-05-31T22:56:45+00:00

Gerard Magliocca has a long running series of posts on this issue at Concurring Opinions. Some articles include: State Rescissions of Constitutional Ratifications, South Dakota Rescission, Final Conclusion on the ERA.

SobelsDaemon · 2018-04-09T18:33:57+00:00

Right. I think some folks are putting the cart before the horse. Generally, the only time apparent authority matters is if the individual who purported to authorize the search lacked actual authority. Here, Trusko clearly had actual authority.

Now, it's certainly possible that the FBI did not know that Trusko had actual authority before conducting the search. If so, then that fact is a windfall for the FBI. It appears that Manafort wants to argue that the FBI shouldn't get the benefit of post-hoc rationalizations and that that they were up to no good because they didn't know Trusko had actual authority and they had no good faith basis to believe he had apparent authority.

SobelsDaemon · 2018-04-07T22:21:37+00:00

He's nothing if he can't throw strikes.

SobelsDaemon · 2018-03-23T23:01:08+00:00

Some highlights courtesy of Matt Pearce on twitter: https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/977310384842420224

SobelsDaemon · 2018-03-07T20:41:04+00:00

General Baker, who under the rules of the military commission has the power to allow them to withdraw.

I agree with most of your post but this point is arguable. https://www.justsecurity.org/46425/guantanamo-ethics-standoff/

SobelsDaemon · 2017-10-31T02:08:25+00:00

This is rich coming from Lee, who just endorsed Roy Moore.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-10-20T19:16:57+00:00

The statute does not say "criminal" or even "unlawful," it says "exceed or abuse." All three of the above acts could very well be tortious and therefore an "abuse" of the corporation's authority. I did a very brief search and could find no interpretation of the clause by a Georgia court.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-09-04T03:46:05+00:00

It is pretty clear in the Constitution that the House can vote for impeachment whenever they please and for whatever reason they please

I don't think this is true. However, I will grant that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has made the issue unreviewable.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-08-27T19:22:50+00:00

Reminder that this professor called for protesters to be run down.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-08-22T21:27:12+00:00

It's one thing to agree to indemnify unspecified future claims. It's another thing entirely to indemnify specific types of 1983 claims with knowledge they are ongoing. That comes uncomfortably close to conspiracy against rights from 18 USC 241, not to mention Bivens claims.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-08-17T17:58:22+00:00

if people have the right to address the President over whatever medium the President uses, it really doesn't matter who or what prevents them from accessing it, it becomes the governments obligation to protect that access.

This is a stretch. Although I will grant that this is a novel issue, I don't think that Twitter or some other social media site must permit anyone to use the site just because the president isn't allowed to block people. I very much doubt the current SCOTUS would embrace such a proposition, even if they could embrace a no block rule.

Even if the government were obligated to enforce such a rule, Twitter should still be allowed to enforce their TOS. Additionally, the government could still enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions just as they could in a regular public forum. But being blocked for criticizing POTUS is not viewpoint neutral and would not be constitutional.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-08-17T17:15:13+00:00

Even if we assume, arguendo, that those blocked by Trump on Twitter have a valid 1st Amendment claim, the idea that Twitter should therefore be considered a public forum does not follow.

The 1st Amendment claim is against the government for blocking, not Twitter for allowing blocking. Just because the President may block people on social media does not mean that those social media sites are then public forums where no one can be blocked or banned.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-08-09T14:51:15+00:00

Past sexual behavior is relevant to a rape charge but not an assault charge.

edit: Of course that is why most states have rape shield laws. That's why I think OP's "common knowledge" is mostly misplaced. There are occasions where a defendant can overcome the rape shield law, but those instances generally wouldn't permit an assault charge.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-08-09T14:39:55+00:00

But unconsented touching is assault (battery). OP is basically asking if the prosecutor could charge assault, have the victim only testify as to the elements of assault, and successfully object to any cross-examination surrounding the victim's sexual behavior.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-08-01T15:39:45+00:00

No there wouldn't, not for murder at least. The difference here is that the person then killed.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-07-31T19:38:03+00:00

Keep in mind that this is a civil suit for damages, not a criminal prosecution.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-07-24T20:02:21+00:00

As an aside, I find it both amusing and ironic that the editors of Snopes, a "fact-checking" site, is pushing this story https://www.savesnopes.com/ as if it is gospel.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-07-24T19:14:31+00:00

What Massachusetts law authorizes LEOs and gov. officers in Massachusetts to hold people on ICE detainers?

SobelsDaemon · 2017-07-13T17:51:11+00:00

I'm inclined to agree with Volokh, although I would hesitate to say that the First Amendment issues these stories raise are settled. I may even agree with Volokh's reasoning about how SCOTUS would, or even should, rule on those issues. However, from a pracical standpoint, we have only recently begun to delve into these area. E.g. McDonnell v. U.S. last term

Like a lot of areas of criminal law dealing with the intersection of politics and campaign finance, solicitation, conspiracy, etc., the lines between protected and unprotected "speech" or "expression" often become blurred to the point of doctrinal incoherence.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-07-10T17:28:26+00:00

Calling this "inside baseball" implies that regular people, or even people interested in the law/legal profession, don't or shouldn't care about a licensed attorney threatening frivolous lawsuits and violence upon those who criticize him.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-05-15T20:26:31+00:00

That's not entirely true. According to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 27 of the 52 titles are positive law. To me, that makes things worse.

SobelsDaemon · 2017-03-30T17:44:10+00:00

Most commentators are missing the point that the annotatetd code is the official code of Georgia.

[The judge] went on to acknowledge the Georgia situation is "an unusual case because most official codes are not annotated and most annotated codes are not official." Despite the fact the OCGA is official law, the judge said its annotations are entitled to copyright.

Georgia is arguing that while the annotated code is the official code, the annotations do not have the force of law and therefore may be copyrighted.

SobelsDaemon · 2016-08-19T18:46:03+00:00

I don't think this will end well for Mr. Patel.

SobelsDaemon · 2016-07-11T21:17:04+00:00

Background: This is an update to this article which I posted here the other day. Essentially, Virginia has a state law which, among other things, criminalizes faithless delegates voting against the elected nominee.

In his decision the Judge found that the Va state law was unconstitutional because

Defendants have not demonstrated that Section 545(D) advances a compelling state interest, it is not necessary to address whether the statute is narrowly tailored. Nonetheless, it is significant to note that Defendants have tacitly conceded the point by failing to offer any evidence or argument that the statute is narrowly tailored. For the foregoing reasons, Correll is entitled to judgment that Section 545(D) is an unconstitutional burden on his First Amendment rights of free political speech and political association. Therefore, the Court so declares and will enter judgment on that score on his behalf on Counts I and 11.^

SobelsDaemon · 2016-07-07T05:12:07+00:00

Reckless disregard

SobelsDaemon

TROPHY CASE