walterolson.bsky.social
Writer on law etc.; Cato Institute. Election law, Maryland civic stuff, cooking. Blogged at Overlawyered back when. No kings, no tyrants.
4,158 posts
23,438 followers
1,193 following
Prolific Poster
comment in response to
post
And my colleague @ilyasomin.bsky.social's. This really should be a front-burner issue, even among the multiple other threats to the rule of law right now. /4, efn
comment in response to
post
If you missed it, here's Clint Bolick's (Arizona Supreme Court) important article at @theunpopulist.net on how the Senate bill goes further than the House to make it practically impossible to challenge many instances of federal lawbreaking: /3
comment in response to
post
Budget bill provision would drastically curtail court orders against Trump administration: "The security requirement would effectively deny plaintiffs the right to challenge unconstitutional government action,” @thefireorg.bsky.social Ronnie London said in a statement provided to The Dispatch. /2
comment in response to
post
I should have included the link (thanks @paulalanlevy.bsky.social ): journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-cont...
comment in response to
post
2,500 turned out here in Frederick, and nearly a thousand by one estimate in Westminster.
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