So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice?

Somebody asked me about this idiotic "PenceCard 2: Electric Boogaloo" article, and people, just stop worrying about this stuff.

The conspiracy wing of the GOP is going to keep pumping out these "Ten Neat Tricks to steal an election [number 8 will shock you!]" articles straight through the inauguration. (Yes - don't expect this to stop after the electoral votes are counted)

None of it is real. None of it has any legal basis. It's fantasy written by fantasists for coping MAGA-ites who find reality just too painful to accept. Ignore it.

This particular flavor of wishcasting was written by Ted Noel. Unless there are two "Ted Noel"s writing nonsense for the American Thinker, Noel is a doctor, not a lawyer or scholar, who nevertheless writes about legal issues

This actually makes me feel a bit better, because the thought that a *lawyer* could think that Pence had "plenary power" to discard state election certificates for any reason he chose is - even after watching Wood, Powell, Kaardal, and the rest - somehow too hard to contemplate

Seriously people. Executive orders mean exactly nothing to what Trump legally can or can't do to fuck with the election results (which is zero). Stop letting idiots make you crazy

There are two very simple, very basic reasons executive orders are meaningless here. Understand them, please

1) the president cannot issue an executive order that grants himself a power he does not already have. For example, the president could not issue an executive order saying that from now on he can make laws they don't need to pass Congress

(I mean, he could sign an executive order saying that, but it wouldn't have any legal effect)

2) the president can issue executive orders at any time.

Let's talk about this North Dakota attempt to legislate around Section 230 and create a civil right of action for users censored by social media sites. CC @mmasnick

Forget, for a moment, that this law, if it passed would immediately be deemed void as preempted by Section 230 (Federal law is supreme over state law where they conflict, and this would create an express conflict). This bill is a really good example of why this stuff is hard

Here's the key provision of the bill. The various highlighting on these versions shows areas we'll touch on

First of all, let's look at the last of those images. There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law - and, in fact, if 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct). So it's incredibly stupid.

But again, put that aside. Let's look at the substance.

First of all, who gets to decide whether content fits into these highlighted categories? Do they actually think that the government will get to decide what counts as "otherwise objectionable"?

Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"

You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone

Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?

Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem

Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas

I kind of feel like "look, what you meant by Purcell was let's just wait until after the election and then invalidate ALL the votes" isn't necessarily the *strongest* argument

Also, you don't just get to make up a new principle of constitutional and election law and just call it "a variant of" Purcell (or anything else).

You can tell it's made up by the total absence of any citation to ANY case, ANYWHERE, saying that

Webinar on "Career in Constitutional Law Practice" organized by Jammu & Kashmir High Court and J&K Judicial Academy will begin shortly.

Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Madhavi Divan, Parag P. Tripathi and Neelima Tripathi will be in conversation with lawyer @gautambhatia88

Session begins.

Rajeev Gupta, Director of J&K Judicial Academy introduces the guests.

now takes over.

He speaks of how the pandemic and social media has taken the Court out of the Courtroom into the public realm.

With platforms such as @LiveLawIndia and @barandbench giving a blow-by-blow account of court proceedings, interest in constitutional law has grown, he says.

He adds that many constitutional lawyers do not start out wanting to practise constitutional laws as such.

Senior Madhavi Divan begins speaking.

She narrates her journey from a law office that was predominantly handled commercial matters.

She opines that it is important to have a multi-faceted grounding in diverse streams of law before specialising in one.

TATA v MISTRY

Hearing to resume today in Supreme Court. Senior Advocate CA Sundaram to continue arguments on behalf of Shapoorji Pallonji firms.

Follow this thread for live updates from court.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies

#SupremeCourt #tatamistry

TATA v MISTRY

Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde assembles.

Hearing commences.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies

TATA v MISTRY

CJI SA Bobde announces that over the weekend he discovered his son who is practicing in Mumbai has been appearing for the last 2 years in a slum rehabilitation matter for a subsidiary company of Shapoorji Pallonji group.

@tatatrusts

TATA v MISTRY

CJI asks whether Harish Salve, Dr Singhvi or CA Sundaram has any objections to CJI hearing the matter.

None of them object. The same is recorded by the Court.

Hearing continues.

#SupremeCourt

TATA v MISTRY

CJI says such issues could cause potential problems in future.

Sundaram continues with his arguments.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies

Back in the mists of time, we suggested that the proposed Scottish Hate Crime bill might be used as a stick to beat women who wanted to discuss the GRA, sex-based rights, & welfare of gender confused children.

We were told we were being silly: no one would do that.

Thread/

Today, we saw two proposed amendments to the hate crime bill with regard to #FreeSpeech in relation to transgender identity.

A general one from @humzayousaf & one from @liamkerrmsp which covers many of the topics women feared might result in prosecution - thank you!

If anyone had doubts that the extremists of gender ideology did not intend to use this legislation as a means to silence and intimidate, the frothing indignation of anti-woman activists who might be prevented from filing hourly hate crime reports, surely laid this to rest.

Naturally, Scottish Green Party were quick to charge into the fray. Emz Cuthbertson, co-convener of SGP women & Rainbow Greens, was in no way hyperbolic in referring to it as a "transphobes charter", with Dr Kevin finding the idea of not being able to shut women up "terrifying".

Also up were activist James (who once promoted a lurid fantasy about lesbians beating up a NB child at Edinburgh Pride) & serial party hopper, Tristan who was horrified that "misgendering" was not about to be a crime & thinks advocating child counselling is "conversion therapy".

Tonight we have dissents from both Sotomayor and Breyer in the last instance of the Supreme Court waving the matador's cape for Trump's machinery of death without so much as a word of reasoned justification

Trump's DOJ has moved with unseemly haste in order to preempt credible legal challenges, and the Court has happily gone along

"This is not justice"

The Supreme Court did not meet the standard required to grant cert before a judgment by the lower court

The actual reason for the extraordinary haste is that the people have chosen a president who opposes the death penalty, and the 6 bloodthirsty Republican-nominated justices want the executions to happen. But this is not a *legal* reason.