@secondatticus #Facebook
Supreme Court will hear today a petition filed by Facebook India Vice-President, Ajit Mohan, which challenges the summons issued to him by Delhi Assembly's Committee of Peace and Harmony in relation to #DelhiRiots2020.
@FacebookIndia @secondatticus #Facebook
@secondatticus #Facebook
https://t.co/TmvueDaJE3
Mohan was issued two summons on August 31, 2020 and the second, on September 18, 2020.
@secondatticus #Facebook
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
Item 13 will be taken up after that.
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
Bench: This has been sent to others ?
Dhavan: It’s been filed.
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
Dhavan: Will Mr. Salve have any problem ?
Salve: It is always a pleasure to hear. Dr. Dhavan. But, they are saying that Committee has separate powers as a jurisdictional entity.
#Facebook @secondatticus
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
Salve states that notice can be issued.
Dhavan: If Salve says that question of law is involved, then it can be answered during the proceedings. I don’t want that to be held up.
Salve: I have American clients, and I want to play it safe. So, I would request for 4 weeks.
Bench: That’s too much.
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
Salve: The Bench may fix a date for final hearing and I will take my instructions.
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
Bench decides to list the matter in the third week of January, on a regular day, except for 19th January, 2021.
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
Justice Roy: Yes, because earlier they all wanted 3 hours each!
#Facebook @secondatticus @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots @DrAMSinghvi
More from Live Law
#LIVE Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum in Association with LiveLaw is conducting a Webinar on the topic 'Attack On Love Marriages And Freedom Of Choice'.
#FreedomOfChoice
Watch the Webinar live at :
YouTube link: https://t.co/l074foe9RA
Facebook link:
https://t.co/d0m3h0Ut1w
Instagram Link:
Advocate Kajal Chandra begins the webinar and introduces the panelist Justice AP Shah, Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice. Advocate Gayatri Virmani introduces Human Rights Activist Jagmati Sangwan.
#FreedomOfChoice
The moderator Adv Chandra questions Justice Shah: Do the freedom of Religious ordinance of laws stand the test of Constitutionality and in your opinion, do they violate the fundamental right of liberty including the freedom to choose? #FreedomOfOpinion
Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice AP Shah: This topic cannot be discussed without referring to the Indian Constitution that guarantees Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and protects dignity of individual and Unity and integrity of the Nation. #FreedomOfChoice
#FreedomOfChoice
Watch the Webinar live at :
YouTube link: https://t.co/l074foe9RA
Facebook link:
https://t.co/d0m3h0Ut1w
Instagram Link:
Advocate Kajal Chandra begins the webinar and introduces the panelist Justice AP Shah, Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice. Advocate Gayatri Virmani introduces Human Rights Activist Jagmati Sangwan.
#FreedomOfChoice
The moderator Adv Chandra questions Justice Shah: Do the freedom of Religious ordinance of laws stand the test of Constitutionality and in your opinion, do they violate the fundamental right of liberty including the freedom to choose? #FreedomOfOpinion
Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice AP Shah: This topic cannot be discussed without referring to the Indian Constitution that guarantees Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and protects dignity of individual and Unity and integrity of the Nation. #FreedomOfChoice
More from Politics
THREAD:
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.
We'll start with the complaint in a minute.
But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.
They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.
It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.
Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop
(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.
We'll start with the complaint in a minute.
But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.
They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.
It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.
Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop
Woke-ism, multiculturalism, all the -isms \u2014 they're not who America is. They distort our glorious founding and what this country is all about. Our enemies stoke these divisions because they know they make us weaker. pic.twitter.com/Mu97xCgxfS
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 19, 2021
(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
