Not even the federal government is exactly sure what is going on.
On Wednesday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court was expected to announce its decision on whether top Biden administration officials could continue reaching out to social media platforms like Facebook, X and YouTube to take down “misinformation.”
It’s a case that can affect potentially thousands of federal employees at the White House, FBI and other agencies, which is why the Department of Justice had gone to the Supreme Court for emergency relief this month.
Yet Thursday morning came and went with nary a word from the nation’s highest court. The court’s inaction is the result of curious developments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that have sidelined the justices and confused the parties to the case.
“Those (Fifth Circuit) orders have injected uncertainty into the proceedings during this Court’s active consideration of the case,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in a filing with the justices.
One of the three former Wisconsin Supreme Court justices whom Assembly Speaker Robin Vos asked to explore the prospect of impeaching newly minted liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz argued in court Friday the group is not subject to the state’s open meetings law.
Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, a conservative and the only former justice to confirm being on the three-person panel, said the group “is not a governmental body by any stretch of the imagination” and is no different from a legislator meeting with a private citizen….
Both Prosser and Vos’ attorney Matthew Fernholz refused to name the other two members of the panel when asked by Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington. Prosser confirmed that the group has met at least once.
“Three people had lunch together,” Prosser said. “We had lunch together because we didn’t know what we were really supposed to do.”
A majority of voters are willing to support an effort to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot, according to a new POLITICO | Morning Consult poll.
After a series of questions about the Constitution and Trump’s conduct after the 2020 presidential election, 51 percent said the 14th Amendment prohibits Trump from running again because he engaged in insurrection, compared with 34 percent who said the opposite…
The first question asks if Americans “support or oppose” that section of the amendment. Broadly, voters agree with it — 63 percent said they either strongly or somewhat support it, which includes a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents. Just 16 percent said they somewhat or strongly oppose it.
But as Trump is introduced in the following questions, respondents separate into their partisan camps. When asked if they believed Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” 51 percent said either definitely or probably yes, and 35 percent said definitely or probably no.
That number is divided sharply on party lines: 79 percent of Democrats — and 49 percent of independents — say that he did, while just under a quarter of Republicans agree. The margins are similar for an additional question that asked if Trump gave “aid and/or comfort” to those engaged in insurrection and rebellion.
Who will it be? Here is a breakdown of what we know from the pages of The Times…
Earlier this year, the governor appeared on MSNBC and was asked by host Joy Reid if he’d “restore” Harris’ seat by appointing a Black woman. Newsom leaped at the question.
“We have multiple names in mind,” he said, “and the answer is yes.”
Feinstein announced last year she would not run for another term.
Lee has criticized Newsom, saying he should not limit his choice to a caretaker.
Although not mentioned in the article, my money is on California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, if she wants it.
October 20, 9:00am-1pm – The Law and Politics of Potentially Disqualifying Donald Trump from Running for President
Conference: The Law and Politics of Potentially Disqualifying Donald Trump from Running for President
Friday October 20, 2023 | 9 am – 1 pm PT (12 pm – 4 pm ET) (on Zoom)
UCLA Law’s Safeguarding Democracy Project
Tentative Conference Agenda
9 am PT
- Richard L. Hasen
9:15 am-10:15 am
Deciding on Presidential Disqualification: Who, How, When, and Where?
- Edward B. Foley
- Derek Muller
- Lisa Manheim
- Moderator: Rebecca Green
10:20 am-11:20 am
The Politics of Candidate Disqualification: Here and Abroad
- Gretchen Helmke
- Sam Issacharoff
- Daniel Ziblatt
- Moderator: Julia Azari
11:25 am-12:25 pm
Does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment Bar Trump from Holding Office?
- Mark Graber
- Sherrilyn Ifill
- Kurt Lash
- Gerard Magliocca
- Moderator: Guy Charles
12:30 pm-1 pm
Conclusion: Roundtable Discussion and Q & A with All the Participants
Moderator: Richard L. Hasen