walterolson.bsky.social
Writer on law etc.; Cato Institute. Election law, Maryland civic stuff, cooking. Blogged at Overlawyered back when. No kings, no tyrants.
4,147 posts
23,420 followers
1,193 following
Prolific Poster
comment in response to
post
I know that this is how this absolutely toxic ecosystem works, but I’m honestly just unbelievably angry about this. I’m absolutely losing it. This should be grounds for censure and even expulsion in a healthy democracy.
He is actively trying to spread lies about a political assassination.
comment in response to
post
I’ve written this up now as a Cato post: www.cato.org/blog/senate-...
comment in response to
post
So goodbye (maybe) to the workaround of having judges issue token bonds for a tiny sum. The result could be to make it hard to restrain the feds from an illegal course of action until a permanent injunction can be obtained, which might take quite a while. (P.S.: Byrd Rule may still apply.) /4, efn
comment in response to
post
This last provision could actually make the measure more effective in curtailing short-term court orders against the federal government, by constraining judges in many cases to order plaintiffs to put up whopping bonds -- high enough to discourage not only indigent litigants but many others. /3
comment in response to
post
It changes the House version as follows: restrict grants of injunctions rather than meddle with contempt powers; regulate only PIs and TROs, not permanent injunctions; regulate only orders against fed gov't; apply prospectively only; and tell judges to scale bond $$ to costs shouldered by feds. /2
comment in response to
post
could we get a few more of those decades where weeks happen, maybe
comment in response to
post
The article cites a few reformist gestures by members of Congress after similar stories surfaced during the first Trump administration. But you're right on the wider point that whichever party is in charge on the Hill, there seems to be little interest in crafting practical legislation.