Alex1Powell's Categories

Alex1Powell's Authors

Latest Saves

THREAD: a point worth addressing is "how would/should VP respond if GOP retained its majority, then voted to suspend/amend a Senate Rule depriving the presiding officer of power." Paragraph 6 of the article wasn't as strong as it could have been, on that point.


The problem with that attack is encapsulated in the Senate's official history (cited graf 7) - https://t.co/UwF93b9YaA

The Senate's official history on its https://t.co/gLTPXi8eiT site recounts the Constitutional fact that the majority leader's presiding powers are derivative.

A power informally delegated by the VP can be taken back, so the Senate history accurately describes the majority leader as "an emperor without clothes." So, if the VP used presiding power to give priority to a senator moving a House-passed bill to the floor, and . . .

. . . the House purported to override that action by 1) self-recognizing the ML to do something different, and then 2) sustaining a point of order limiting the VP's presiding power, what would be the legal basis and remedy for that action?

Several principles intersect here that arise from agency rulemaking. But first, we have to recognize the Supremacy Clause - the Constitution is a superior law to any other law, rule or precedent.
Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.

Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.


First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.

It appeared an overtly political decision.


Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.

A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.


On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.


The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.

The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”

Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.
The #ICC said it can’t assert jurisdiction over China’s repression in #Xinjiang. https://t.co/kw2AQy9Qin

But facts are facts: China’s gov't has committed serious rights violations against the #Uyghurs on a 🚨massive 🚨scale.

A 🧵on @hrw findings so far & next steps.


In 2018, @wang_maya literally wrote👏 the👏 book👏on the Chinese govt's mass, systematic campaign of violations against Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang. /2
https://t.co/t7nyX3x6QO


The Chinese govt's "Strike Hard" campaign has subjected ❇️ 1 million+❇️ Turkic Muslims to abuses like:

💠forced political indoctrination
💠collective punishment
💠restrictions on movement and communications
💠heightened religious restrictions
💠mass surveillance

/3


Not even kids are safe from this campaign’s cruelty.

Chinese authorities have kept countless children - whose parents are detained or in exile - in state-run child welfare institutions & boarding schools w/out parental consent or ⛔️access. More here: https://t.co/vVT6Xk4U7Y

/4


Last week, @wang_maya revealed a big data program for China’s policing in #Xinjiang that arbitrarily selects Turkic Muslims for possible detention. The government is using technology 💻 to “turbocharge” its repression of the #Uyghurs.

https://t.co/C8xouSEHD4

/5