Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck )

Steve Vladeck

Bio @KSVesq’s husband; Maddies, Sydneys, and @RoxannaThePugs dad; @UTexasLaw professor; @NSLpodcast co-host; @CNN #SCOTUS nerd. #LGM
Location Austin, TX
Tweets 25,1K
Followers 125,1K
Following 2,9K
Account created 26-09-2011 11:07:46
ID 380268462

iPhone : Theres a lot of complex doctrine here, but this new divided death penalty ruling from the Eleventh Circuit is not just flabbergasting (H/T: Josh Block); its preposterous as a matter of case law, regular judicial procedure, and ordinary common sense:

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f…

Twitter Web App : On its own (but see #SCOTUS's hostility toward courts doing this earlier this year in Sineneng-Smith), the majority is making it close to impossible for death-row inmates in GA, AL, or FL to challenge the constitutionality of a method of execution if no other method is available.

Twitter Web App : Theres a lot of complex doctrine here, but this new divided death penalty ruling from the Eleventh Circuit is not just flabbergasting (H/T: Josh Block); its preposterous as a matter of case law, regular judicial procedure, and ordinary common sense:

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f…

Twitter Web App : This is excellent news, and correctly calls Trump's (first) #NDAA veto bluff. twitter.com/connorobrienNH…

Twitter Web App : AC Bradley P. Moss One Senator and one Representative can together force the chambers to separately deliberate, but they then vote as a whole on whether to accept the challenge.

Twitter Web App : David Grilli Yes, if "the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State."

But then the electoral votes get thrown out, not awarded to someone else.

Twitter Web App : "[N]o electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected," unless both chambers vote to do so.

Twitter Web App : Absent competing slates of electors, this is just a PR stunt. Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Brooks would ultimately need a *majority* of the Senate to endorse his challenge; and when (not if) the House disagrees, the electors certified by "the executive of the State ... shall be counted." twitter.com/MZanona/status…

Twitter Web App : David Dowdy The lawsuit Senator Cruz is supporting is literally asking #SCOTUS to throw out *all* 6.9 million votes cast by Pennsylvanians and have the PA legislature choose their own slate of electors. How is that *not* "disenfranchising the voters of Pennsylvania"?

Twitter Web App : Jim Carson Jonah Goldberg 6.9 million votes were cast in PA:

electionreturns.pa.gov/General/Summar…

2.6 million of those were by mail. The suit is arguing to either throw those out, or throw out the entire election and have the legislature decide.

Whenever you want to apologize for your original tweet, I'll be here.

Twitter Web App : Jim Carson Jonah Goldberg Maybe read past the headline?: “The PA Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances. ... The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in PA.” That's Cruz's words arguing that all mail-in votes in PA should be thrown out.

Twitter Web App : Thomas Frampton Haller Jackson Unfortunately, I think Edwards' chances vanished the day #SCOTUS decided Summerlin, Bockting, and/or Chaidez. If Ring, Crawford, and Padilla aren't "watershed" rules, it's hard to see how Ramos could be.

(This isn't to say that any of those decisions are *correct,* of course.)