Why wouldn’t it be the courts?

Permitting state supreme courts to disqualify a fed candidate under Sect 3 doesn't mean states have unchecked power.

State ct rulings interpreting the U.S. Constitution are subject to SCOTUS review, which makes SCOTUS, not states, the ultimate decider.

Permitting state supreme courts to disqualify a fed candidate under Sect 3 doesn't mean states have unchecked power.

State ct rulings interpreting the U.S. Constitution are subject to SCOTUS review, which makes SCOTUS, not states, the ultimate decider.

Am I missing something? Permitting state supreme courts to disqualify a fed candidate under Sect 3 doesn't mean states have unchecked power.

State ct rulings interpreting the U.S. Constitution are subject to SCOTUS review, which makes SCOTUS, not states, the ultimate decider.

Attn AALS attendees-please come to a panel that I put together-

Brown, Equal Education and Democracy: Honoring the 70th Anniversary of Brown v. Board.

Time/date: Fri, Jan 5, 10:00-11:40 a.m.
Room: Independence Salon F, Level M4, Marriott Marquis

THREAD

The panel will be moderated by @CaitlinAMillat of ASU.

Hope to see you there!

END

4. Osamudia James (UNC) will examine the right of parents to vote on school finance issues after having opted out of public schools, and discuss its implications for democracy, disproportionate political power, and unequal school financing.

3-I'll discuss Brown's racial integration mandate as a principle of equality & democracy.

Integration should be viewed as a means to foster equal status relationships btw students, enabling them as adults to construct & participate in a racially inclusive democratic process.

2. Luis Fuentes-Rohwer (Indiana Bloomington) will explore the relationship btw race, equal education and voting rights. He will discuss the uneasy connection between Brown and Lassiter, the 1959 case that held that literacy tests do not violate equal protection.

Joy Milligan (UVA Law) will discuss reimagining the federal administrative state through the concept of racial repair. She will address a provocative question-what would the federal administrative state look like today if desegregation had proceeded as it could or should have?

In Brown, democracy was invoked to strike down school segregation. The Court, however, did not fully explain the relationship between race, equal education and democracy. The panel will examine the connections from various perspectives.

The 4 presenters/presentations-

Attn AALS attendees-please come to a panel that I put together-

Brown, Equal Education and Democracy: Honoring the 70th Anniversary of Brown v. Board.

Time/date: Fri, Jan 5, 10:00-11:40 a.m.
Room: Independence Salon F, Level M4, Marriott Marquis

THREAD

The Court would then have to identify what political institution does have the authority to determine if Trump is qualified. If not the courts, then whom? Congress? State secretaries of state?

Possibly. But the Court basically has a choice between various bad options.

If the Court does decide to hear the case, that probably means that it will overrule on substantive grounds and ensure Trump gets to be in the ballot. Probably 6-3.

Cleanest way to not hear the case is to deny cert.

I think that might happen with this case.

But if other states start disqualifying Trump, then the Court may step in to put a stop to it, reminiscent of Bush v Gore.

Problem is that the CO STATE Supreme Court issued the ruling and presumably ruled that the plaintiff had standing under CO law.

Federal justiciability doctrine is about whether the lawsuit may be brought in federal court. Says nothing about state court.

When the fetus is nonviable, there is NO “protect prenatal life” interest implicated.

When that interest doesn’t apply, forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term is cruel and unusual punishment, an arbitrary and capricious invasion of bodily autonomy, and may reflect animus towards women.

The fetus has a fatal condition and has no chance of survival.

So, the “protect prenatal life” interest isn’t implicated.

So, what is the “legitimate” state interest for banning an abortion necessary to protect a woman’s health?

How does the ban even meet rational basis review?

Here’s my question-The fetus has a fatal condition and has no chance of survival.

So, the “protect prenatal life” interest isn’t implicated.

So, what is the “legitimate” state interest for banning an abortion necessary to protect a woman’s health?

How does the ban meet rational basis review?

The fetus has a fatal condition and has no chance of survival.

So, the “protect prenatal life” interest isn’t implicated.

So, what is the “legitimate” state interest for banning an abortion necessary to protect a woman’s health?

How does the ban even meet rational basis review?

Welcome any thoughts or comments!

My article, "The Anti-constitutionality of the Deeply Rooted Test in Dobbs," was just published by the CSU Law Rev. In it I argue Alito's deeply rooted test is at odds with CJ John Marshall's notion of the Integrated Constitution & should be rejected.

engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/v...

Attention all Law and Humanities junior scholars-

Please submit your paper for the Law and Humanities Workshop for Junior Scholars.

Submissions deadline: December 15.

Go to our website for the call for papers.

LawandHumanitiesWorkshop.org

The call for proposals for the loveliest, warmest, most intellectually stimulating, & most fun conference of your year is now LIVE! LCH 2024 will be in Vancouver, 17-18 May 2024, about the Senses of Law. CFP here lawculturehumanities.com/event/2024-t.... Your brilliant ideas due 31 January 2024

Just voted in Ohio. Will be interesting to see how the two initiatives fare, one on abortion and one on legalizing marijuana.

Wonder about the turnout of young voters.

There are about 14 seasons of Dr Who, so if you watch it and like it, lots of episodes to watch!

Mr Queen and Live Up To Your Name are on Netflix with subtitles.

Dr Who is on Amazon Prime/BBC.

My Perfect Stranger is on Viki.

Dr. Who

Korean time travel dramas-
Mr. Queen-a 21st guy travels back in time into the body of a Korean queen

My Perfect Stranger-a man travels back to 1987 to find the person who’ll murder him in 2024

Live Up To Your Name-a 17th century doctor travels to practice medicine in 21st century

Quite startling how Heller/Bruen transformed gun control discourse-Take #2

I remember when senseless gun violence/terrorism made gun rights supporters defensive.

Now when gun violence occurs, they call for more guns, more lethal guns, more people armed w/ guns, etc.

Read some tweets about Rahimi, & it’s startling just how much Heller and Bruen have shifted the Overton Window on gun control discourse.

The language of gun control has gone out the Window (pun intended) and the language of gun rights now frames all gun discourse.