alexanderwinn.bsky.social
This page is personal. The views expressed are my own.
1,115 posts
62 followers
126 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Such decisions are always subject to judicial review. And that's a consequential argument in any event that is divorced from the weight of history regarding what s3 of the 14A meant.
comment in response to
post
I don't dispute what Trump is doing is viewpoint discrimination, I dispute the premise that viewpoint discrimination is banned within the very specific nature of the forum in question, which is a tight knit forum that has always been subject to viewpoint discrimination, whether implicit or explicit
comment in response to
post
Trump v Anderson is more obviously wrong than Trump v US.
comment in response to
post
We have no idea what their views are lol. You're treating this legal issue identically to other legal issues involving Trump when as explained it's not straightforward. We don't even know if SCOTUS would grant cert on this particular issue!
comment in response to
post
I wouldn't be so presumptive about what SCOTUS will do with this case.It's also not responsive to the legal content of what I had to say. Particularly, because just because SCOTUS rules in a given way doesn't mean it's correct, unless you're a big Trump v Anderson fan.
comment in response to
post
I don't see how the outcome is any different even if QI doesn't exist.
comment in response to
post
Fin.
comment in response to
post
And second, even assuming Lindke v Freed was rightly decided, the context of social media for the reasons I have already touched upon is very different to the instant case. Regardless, even if you still disagree, you should see that it's not a deranged view even if the policy outcome is undesirable.
comment in response to
post
I don't think the Founders would have thought there was a right to enter a restricted building and a right above and beyond that afforded by a right to petition, and specific privileges for a select group of people go above and beyond.
comment in response to
post
privately provided, even down to accounts of govt. For Congress's part, there was an obligation to publish, and obviously you could access Congress to view proceedings, but even then, that's pretty limited access. Meanwhile for example, Presidential candidates didn't even campaign.
comment in response to
post
In England, Hansard which were the proceedings of Parliament weren't publicly available, and you accessed them via buying records published in newspapers in the 19th century. Records of judicial proceedings were similarly often privately created. It was a world where lots of core govt stuff was...
comment in response to
post
First, despite Lindke v Freed being unanimous, I think the judgment was wrongly decided and based on pragmatic considerations not reflected in the history of the 1A. It presupposes a level of public entitlement to access politicians that isn't supportable by Originalism in my view.
comment in response to
post
property with extremely limited spaces that have always been subject to what I think is an implicit quality filter, it's not tenable to argue it's the same as other 1A cases involving very different public forums. A good case for you is Lindke v Freed, but note a few things there.
comment in response to
post
reaction either, but the thing to realise is many of these issues are both novel and being a norm violation isn't automatically a Constitutional violation. Now I'd be interested in maybe looking at a fiduciary duty view of the Constitution, but I'm not convinced given its on not publicly available..
comment in response to
post
and the instinctive reaction is to say, his actions are an abuse of power and therefore, the norm that previously existed by custom must be elevated to being a constitutional right somehow. Very easy to make the jump in reasoning, and I'm not going to pretend I'm entirely above that instinctive..
comment in response to
post
it sharply departed with what was previously recognised as the norm, being crackpots like Infowars don't turn up at Presidential briefings (i.e. viewpoint discrimination0. Which I think is what's going on here, Trump is shattering a norm viz a viz the relationship between the institutional press..
comment in response to
post
I would suggest it's implicit in the credentialing process, specifically, credentialing being the domain of the institutional press. As I recall Infowars during Trump 1 managed to get a pass into the briefing room which caused a massive stir given their views. It was newsworthy precisely because...
comment in response to
post
Somehow? It is a private space. I can’t barge into the Oval Office and demand face to face access to the President. Your statement is restating a conclusion I already gathered without a why. Particularly since as forums go, it’s always been a tightly curated one with viewpoint discrimination.
comment in response to
post
Devolution wouldn't be fair at all.
comment in response to
post
Many such cases.
comment in response to
post
>Mastermind of the Judge's Bill making the modern SCOTUS
>Succeeded in getting SCOTUS its own building
>Worked behind the scenes to ensure Congress gives Pitney his pension
>Constantly in the Pres's ear and influential in appointing Butler and Sutherland
Not even all of it. Step forward 🐐 Taft.
comment in response to
post
More importantly, judicial review is found within the concept of judicial review. The problem with trying to articulate a clear error standard is it cuts against existing background standards of proof, in particular, balance of probabilities.
comment in response to
post
Kind of love it. It's almost calculated to enrage the bluesky commentariat who think the function of the Courts isn't to protect fundamental liberties (except their view of liberties, some of which aren't in the Constitution) but to superintend everything the Executive does internally.
comment in response to
post
Interestingly, the Australian approach to analysis of convention departs from the British precisely because of the written quality of our Constitution. See e.g. the legality of the sacking of Gough Whitlam which was legal irrespective of convention (there's debate whether it was consistent).
comment in response to
post
My point here is I don't think media access to the Whitehouse is a straightforward legal issue, which I think Stephen presupposes when he says the reasoning is deranged as if it's outside the realm of acceptable legal reasoning.
comment in response to
post
What's deranged about it?
comment in response to
post
Taft was GOATed as a Chief. There, I said it.
comment in response to
post
With friends like these who think it’s all a product of horse trading and a form of judicial corruption, who needs enemies.
comment in response to
post
Why is it seemingly impossible for progressives to believe that other progressive jurists aren’t on the same page as them on some religious issues? I think Sotomayor was genuine in this opinion. I think Kagan was genuine in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Our Lady of Guadeloupe and Trinity Lutheran.
comment in response to
post
Cope.
comment in response to
post
Ahh no, it's not coincidental, it's because she's a.) ultra progressive and b.) is part of a trio that spews deranged and hateful bullshit on a weekly basis.
comment in response to
post
I don’t necessarily think that’s the implication from that response tbh.
comment in response to
post
Human nature is what it is. I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think these people are equally as invested in their work for opposing administrations.
comment in response to
post
I don’t agree with the Big Beautiful Bill, but the issue of public servants dragging feet has been a conservative and libertarian grievance for a long time.
comment in response to
post
It tells me they think most govt workers are biased against GOP (they are), they are especially hostile to any agenda supportive of smaller govt or con policy (of course they are), and they’re happy enough to undermine any administration that tried to do implement it (of course). What’s your point?
comment in response to
post
I'm here for the smug he's breaking the law more stuff because it's true. But, it also implies some unflattering things about the Biden admin.
comment in response to
post
Only read part 1 because it's a very lengthy article, but I tip my hat to you. So far it is very informative and not partisan, and usefully adds our knowledge base.
comment in response to
post
They watched Back to the Future.
comment in response to
post
I'm seething because it's the most obvious application of Occam's razor ever and yet, the most obvious explanation for legal progs is that there needs to be a top down dictat from HQ for high powered legal elites to do anything on their initiative. For goodness sake.
comment in response to
post
The influence in the Trump admin is a consequence of members within that network being influential and doing politics in their own right. Which is separate from the organisation, but obviously, some members by virtue of being con/libertarian elites will have influence. How is this so hard to get?!
comment in response to
post
For the love of God, the main function of the besides debate(to churn out ideas to create intellectual heft within the judiciary) is to provide a network which is supportive professionally to avoid drift.
comment in response to
post
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
comment in response to
post
The Roberts Court has been a force for good in the United States.
comment in response to
post
Yuck, no.
comment in response to
post
This has nothing to do with the Establishment clause.
comment in response to
post
I think there’s a rise of celebrity in SCOTUS, and that’s more the explanation than anything else.
comment in response to
post
I think both sides of the ideological spectrum have their fair share of the blame here.
comment in response to
post
She’s also a massively overrated writer. The faithless electors case was borderline embarrassing just in terms of writing. Veep doesn’t belong in judicial opinions.
comment in response to
post
Not applicable to this case, but advancing justice and promoting national reconciliation are sometimes (often?) mutually exclusive.