The justices weren't going to be able to duck January 6-related legal questions forever. Here's a closer look at two new developments—both of which suggest that they may be ready to dive in.
Super-clarifying, especially *Fisher* in comparison to *Miller* and *Lang*....also, the substantive differences between the rioters' conduct and that of tRump with respect to §1522(c)(2), which for even a layman untrained in law, the circumstances couldn't be more different. Any way one slices it, the man is toast - no immunity, let's go to trial.
The Court's intervention in 2000, and its generally poor reception, may have contributed to making it gunshy in 2020. But there are lots of ways that 2020 was different from 2000, and none of them would make the Court want to take 2020 election cases more than it did the 2000 case.
This piece is easily the clearest, most detailed, and most persuasive article about the recent developments in the January 6. case. Don't even bother listening to explanations on TV or even reasonably legally coherent news reports. You need to be in the weeds for these issues and Professor Vladeck masterfully succeeds in untangling the branches.
Super-clarifying, especially *Fisher* in comparison to *Miller* and *Lang*....also, the substantive differences between the rioters' conduct and that of tRump with respect to §1522(c)(2), which for even a layman untrained in law, the circumstances couldn't be more different. Any way one slices it, the man is toast - no immunity, let's go to trial.
The Court's intervention in 2000, and its generally poor reception, may have contributed to making it gunshy in 2020. But there are lots of ways that 2020 was different from 2000, and none of them would make the Court want to take 2020 election cases more than it did the 2000 case.
Great post - thanks for clarifying the Court's actions in these cases.
This piece is easily the clearest, most detailed, and most persuasive article about the recent developments in the January 6. case. Don't even bother listening to explanations on TV or even reasonably legally coherent news reports. You need to be in the weeds for these issues and Professor Vladeck masterfully succeeds in untangling the branches.
Excellent explanations. Thank you.
Very informative and helpful.