Tim Margheim @jugulum

Aggressively scout-minded predominately conservative, classically liberal Christian. Insists on nuance & common ground; opposes squishiness. Joined March 2009

Tweets

6K
Followers

178
Following

567
Likes

2K

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 months ago

@ConLawWarrior @TimothySandefur @ConLawWarrior I just read the fuller opinion. I think the majority got it right , and Jackson misread why they were discounting the Black Codes example. They gave enough principle. But what she said in those highlighted parts still seems exactly right, as far as it goes.

0 0 0 11 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 months ago

@ConLawWarrior @TimothySandefur Maybe a principle is: When the legislatures were blatantly violating some parts of the Constitution (equal protection), we don't need to give them any benefit of the doubt on whether they were trying not to violate others (the 2nd Am).

1 0 0 14 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 months ago

@whignewtons Consider: At the hypothetical extreme of "Noem didn't even send an email or have a single conversation" for the required consultation, is there really no review of that? If it required notice-and-comment before determination, and that didn't happen, would there be no review?

0 0 0 67 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 months ago

@whignewtons i.e. required process vs substance. Now, Courts shouldn't do barred subst review masquerading as allowed process review. And maybe they did here? I haven't read the case yet. But if they held there's *never* review of process leading to determinations... that's sketchy.

1 0 0 73 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 months ago

@whignewtons Sic burn.

0 0 5 481 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 months ago

@tally8076 @kyledcheney Based on my memory and then some quick searching right now to confirm: Article 3 chords have had their jurisdiction severely limited for *removal* orders. But not for habeas corpus challenge of *detention* orders.

0 0 1 13 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

3 months ago

@whignewtons Shouldn't we say voters shielded us all from *finding out* how much SCOTUS shielded Trump? DOJ reindicted, but we never found out how it would have stood up to challenge under the SCOTUS ruling. But also yes, SCOTUS absolutely shielded Biden, and that's underappreciated.

0 0 9 1K 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

4 months ago

@whignewtons Would you say that's your number two problem right now?

0 0 0 85 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

4 months ago

@jmhorp The punchline: This chart is not adjusted for inflation.

1 0 1 944 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

8 months ago

@OrinKerr @whignewtons Never the twain shall meat!

0 0 1 86 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

10 months ago

@MarkAllenbaugh @Quilly_Dilly @SCOTUSblog It's fine from my laptop, but shows the warning about expired domains from my phone. There might be a problem with a fixed DNS record still getting propagated, so different people see different things. If so hopefully that will resolve itself as caches get updated.

0 0 0 14 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

a year ago

@HoffProf @adam_shniderman I can't wait to read it and find out if there's a second shrub! Only slightly higher. So you get a two layer effect, with a little path running down the middle!

0 0 0 12 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

a year ago

@HoffProf @adam_shniderman Ugh, low-hanging fruit.

1 0 0 14 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

a year ago

@ajrichar @RandyEBarnett

0 0 1 18 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 years ago

@megbasham @jwsherrod @NeilShenvi It could be that "Neil wants to help people avoid taking what Vance said in a bad direction (b/c he thinks it happens enough that it's important to say, when Vance is raising the profile of that idea)". Right? So why jump to "Neil is accusing Vance of getting it wrong himself"?

0 0 1 50 1

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 years ago

@espinsegall @WilliamBaude @sherifgirgis @whignewtons @DavidAFrench @kateashaw1 I'm talking about, "applying original legal standards faithfully can *sometimes* lead to results the authors wouldn't have liked or expected". Do you really think affirming that bare possibility is "living con"? To a degree that justifies "we can't have meaningful conv."?

0 0 0 26 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 years ago

@espinsegall @WilliamBaude @sherifgirgis @whignewtons @DavidAFrench @kateashaw1 (Some originalists make that mistake!) An author can (sometimes) write out a principle in a way that is clear, & not realize that the implications of what they've written will have consequences they don't anticipate and wouldn't like, even when applied with perfect faithfulness.

0 0 0 27 0

View Details

Tim Margheim @jugulum

2 years ago

@espinsegall @WilliamBaude @sherifgirgis @whignewtons @DavidAFrench @kateashaw1 IIRC you've said you don't accept that distinction. Your conclusion would make sense in that light. But to put it in a slightly spiky way: If you think the authors of a law are *always* authoritative on how the meaning should apply, you don't understand how language works.