This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1345475
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1345475
Is “every one L” a legal term ?
2 Likes
1L, short for “First-Year Law Student.” You can probably guess 2L and 3L from there.
9 Likes
cool, thanks : )
1 Like
Judge: “What standard of review should I apply?”
Rudy: “Cheeseburger your Worship”
13 Likes
The rules are different for Skeletor alumnus Eternia U law
2 Likes
So what I’m hearing is…next SCOTUS Justice?
1 Like
Giuliani “whiffed”? He never even got the bat off his shoulder.
6 Likes
And don’t even get me started on how much harder Eternian Dental School is:
3 Likes
Wow!
20 Likes
Go Joe. Run up that score!
8 Likes
"Mr. Giuliani, here is a dime. Call your mother…”
(h/t John Houseman)
15 Likes
The problem of how to treat voting as a fundamental right has existed for decades. Other fundamental rights like procreation have many stakeholders (e.g. a baby could be seen by the state as a future taxpayer). Similarly, voting is not just fundamental to individuals but institutional continuity. Often, it’s the candidate bringing the suit!
First, the Court should redefine what it means to have a fundamental right to vote, applying a fundamental-rights-plus-strict-scrutiny approach to laws that directly burden individuals. The Court should use the severe burden test only for other laws, which typically burden candidates or political parties and impact voters only indirectly. Second, the Court should carefully calibrate the strict scrutiny test for election law cases, and in particular should define the narrowly tailored prong so that it comports with the unique circumstances of an election law dispute. In this way, the right to vote will remain fundamental, but states can continue to regulate elections to avoid fraud and ensure fairness
.
2 Likes
Problem: too old. The Federalist Society only wants jurists in the 40-50 age range so that “lifetime” appointment actually means something.
2 Likes
It is proving amusing when the president’s personal liar gets additional scrutiny.
7 Likes
Except I had Constitutional law second year, didn’t you? I thought that was standard.
Also, I have been a lawyer for more than 30 years and didn’t get that she was referring to a first year law student.
5 Likes
Was it filed by Guilani, who wants to bill the campaign $20,000/day for his services?
7 Likes
The Trump campaign via Rudy is asking a federal judge in PA to declared Trump the winner.
Having lost the commonwealth by more than 82,000 votes, the Trump Campaign is openly trying to get Pennsylvania's electors by judicial fiat. Not through a recount or the state legislature or anything--just a bald court order saying Trump wins.
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) November 18, 2020
10 Likes
Mitch McConnell needs to burn in hell. They sure tried.
3 Likes