Libs concurring only in judgment and getting only a plurality? Or a very narrow holding that gets 6 votes?

I wouldn’t count on it.

“The Wrath of Khan”, at least one plute called it.

I would like to report a murder.

I know you’re right but we kind of need this rn.

If taste were a country, he’d be guilty of treason there too.

The most important rule in constitutional law: 🖐️

Well at least they own it. Disgusting cruelty is their brand.

They were careless people.

He even makes Arabic sound friendly and inviting. That’s talent.

Dude I love arcane debates on the nuances of defunct 1792 statutes as much as anyone but really these bad faith arguments from the goose-stepping Vichy wing of the legal academy are super tiresome. They just want a king, but we bend over backward to entertain the fiction it’s more than that.

Best physical specimen if you’re a scientist studying obesity and dementia.

Two words: parliamentary supremacy.

This dude is a total Buddha.

I think of that constantly in terms of how far executive power has drifted.. George Washington had to get PERMISSION from a judge BEFORE he could take troops in to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. And that was the guy everyone trusted because he’d just, like, won the revolution.

This is what I meant to reply to. Cf Powell v McCormack (1969). House’s powers to set its own rules and be judge of its own elections are not plenary powers; they’re judicable if individual members are not seated for political reasons. Expulsion IS a plenary power of each house, but needs 2/3.

supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...