Steve Vladeck已認證帳戶

@steve_vladeck

Professor . Better ½: . Pug: . Co-host . /legal nerd . Blogging /. .

#ATX
law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephe…
加入2011年9月
576 個相片或影片 圖片與影片

推文

你已封鎖 @steve_vladeck

你確定要查看這些推文嗎？查看推文並不會將 @steve_vladeck 解除封鎖

  1. 釘選的推文
    2017年4月19日

    The team hard at work recording Episode 13, with friend of the podcast and another special guest (not pictured).

    、 、 、及
    9 replies 8 則轉推 140 個喜歡
    還原
  2. 22 分鐘前

    It’s almost like a large percentage of the voters in your party care about things other than making sure that there are enough votes in the Senate to confirm judges of whom you approve—and that the things they care about are actually deeply problematic to lots of other voters...

    Uh, oh. Looks like many Republican voters in West Virginia have learned nothing from the Alabama fiasco. "Voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the [primary] race" is a great way to lose the general election.
    1 replies 4 則轉推 12 個喜歡
    還原
  3. 3 小時前

    Via , me on why the nomination is (and should be) as much a referendum on the absence of meaningful judicial or political accountability for after September 11 as it is on her specific role in CIA abuses:

    2 replies 52 則轉推 60 個喜歡
    還原
  4. 6 小時前

    As points out, this is effectively arguing for ’s confirmation not despite her deeply troubling role in CIA , but because of it. A President who sees no problem w/ torture is all the more reason to want a CIA Director who does.

    My highly respected nominee for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, has come under fire because she was too tough on Terrorists. Think of that, in these very dangerous times, we have the most qualified person, a woman, who Democrats want OUT because she is too tough on terror. Win Gina!
    12 replies 221 則轉推 584 個喜歡
    還原
  5. 19 小時前

    And before I get a bunch of “but Sally Yates” responses, no, I don’t think could’ve been prosecuted under the Act, either, although he may have been in lots of other legal jeopardy:

    4 replies 4 則轉推 46 個喜歡
    顯示此對話串
    顯示此對話串
    還原
  6. 19 小時前

    Dear Internet: The Logan Act is a dormant, 219-year-old statute that: 1. Has never successfully been used; & 2. Is a content-based restriction on speech (and, as such, likely unconstitutional). Stop trying to make the Logan Act happen; it never will.

    29 replies 100 則轉推 282 個喜歡
    顯示此對話串
    顯示此對話串
    還原
  7. 已轉推
    5月6日

    To generalize, having a principle win out over a competing principle is not an abandonment of the “losing” principle. That’s what makes it a principle and not a rule.

    The more I think about this tweet, the more it pisses me off. Leaving aside that doesn’t actually believe this (or did she vote for Hillary?), “hypocrisy” is claiming to have moral standards belied by your own behavior. One of _my_ moral standards is opposing torture.
    顯示此對話串
    6 則轉推 31 個喜歡
    還原
  8. 5月6日

    So any “hypocrisy,” in this case, would be if I supported a nominee solely because she’s a member of an underrepresented group despite the fact that she is responsible for conduct that I find to be deeply morally reprehensible... But maybe that’s just me?

    6 replies 23 則轉推 174 個喜歡
    顯示此對話串
    顯示此對話串
    還原
  9. 5月6日

    The more I think about this tweet, the more it pisses me off. Leaving aside that doesn’t actually believe this (or did she vote for Hillary?), “hypocrisy” is claiming to have moral standards belied by your own behavior. One of _my_ moral standards is opposing torture.

    There is no one more qualified to be the first woman to lead the CIA than 30+ year CIA veteran Gina Haspel. Any Democrat who claims to support women’s empowerment and our national security but opposes her nomination is a total hypocrite
    22 replies 267 則轉推 1,183 個喜歡
    顯示此對話串
    顯示此對話串
    還原
  10. 5月6日

    I deeply believe that women are underrepresented in all kinds of senior leadership positions, and I believe just as deeply in having the right folks defending our national security. I just don’t believe in torture.

    There is no one more qualified to be the first woman to lead the CIA than 30+ year CIA veteran Gina Haspel. Any Democrat who claims to support women’s empowerment and our national security but opposes her nomination is a total hypocrite
    7 replies 91 則轉推 406 個喜歡
    還原
  11. 5月5日

    I’m no fan of the Logan Act, but do folks really think Flynn was in jeopardy _only_ under a 218-year-old statute that had never been successfully used? What about the FARA violations, 18 U.S.C. § 219, etc.? Doesn’t the “railroading” thesis fall apart if Flynn had other exposure?

    14 replies 18 則轉推 93 個喜歡
    還原
  12. 已轉推
    5月4日

    We can never stop fighting until we learn the truth, which is why it is critical the Senate takes action to protect the Mueller investigation.

    232 replies 574 則轉推 1,981 個喜歡
    還原
  13. 5月5日

    Always read .

    Here is my take for on how nobody understands anything that's happening right now
    1 replies 29 則轉推 74 個喜歡
    還原
  14. 5月4日

    Here’s the relevant text of the Senate bill (proposed new 28 U.S.C. § 599K-8(b):

    1 replies 3 則轉推 8 個喜歡
    顯示此對話串
    顯示此對話串
    還原
  15. 5月4日

    A serious question for those arguing that the protection bill is unconstitutional: The existing regulation already codifies the same removal standard: Do you also think that _it_ is unconstitutional? If so, why not push Congress to repeal it?

    7 replies 9 則轉推 30 個喜歡
    顯示此對話串
    顯示此對話串
    還原
  16. 5月4日

    The Chairman of the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee continuing to burnish his reputation as a thoughtful, nuanced, principled, and apolitical leader of one of the country's most important oversight bodies:

    OMG! Logan Act violations!! Send in the G Men...
    7 replies 31 則轉推 114 個喜歡
    還原
  17. 5月4日

    [Sad] Harvey day.

    3 replies 1 則轉推 4 個喜歡
    還原
  18. 5月4日

    How about: The First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to say about what a private radio station chooses not to air.

    For a Radio Station to stop playing music because of his views is a violation of his First Amendment Rights. You can't just silence someone because you don't like their Free Speech. Thoughts?
    19 replies 62 則轉推 399 個喜歡
    還原
  19. 5月4日

    The error is especially odd / ironic because, as I wrote yesterday, the President has _more_ power with respect to firing principal officers under current law than he has for inferior officers:

    5 replies 13 則轉推 62 個喜歡
    顯示此對話串
    顯示此對話串
    還原
  20. 5月4日

    Among everything else that’s odd about this statement is asserting that the FBI Director is an “inferior executive branch officer.” That’s almost certainly wrong (under precedent, he’s almost certainly a principal executive branch officer). H/T:

    Giuliani statement
    19 replies 70 則轉推 182 個喜歡
    顯示此對話串
    顯示此對話串
    還原
  21. 5月4日

    Al-Darbi's transfer earlier this week reduces the "convicted" category by 1, but it's still worth re-upping this helpful breakdown of detainees from . 40 detainees remain—5 cleared for transfer; 25 in indefinite detention; and 10 in the military commissions:

    No prisoners have been released or approved for transfer since 1/20/2017. 41 men still there, incl. 5 cleared to go.
    2 replies 7 則轉推 4 個喜歡
    還原

@steve_vladeck 尚未發表任何推文。

看來要一段時間讀取資料。

Twitter 可能已超出負載，或發生暫時性的小問題。請再試一次，或造訪 Twitter 狀態以取得更多資訊。

    你也可能也會喜歡

    ·