user avatar
Marty Lederman
@marty_lederman
"Professor Lederman ... goes on and on and on ... ." (Justice Jackson at oral argument in Trump v. U.S.) ConLaw Prof at the Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, DC
Joined August 2011
Posts
  • user avatar
    The simple point, regardless of legality: There's no legitimate, let alone good, reason to have breached the historic practice by passing over Rod Rosenstein in favor of Whitaker. There are only illegitimate reasons. And it's not even a debatable question.
    President Trump: "Matt Whitaker is a highly respected man. The Justice Department respects him tremendously." hill.cm/gGlIiMD
    00:00
  • user avatar
    The headline here is that not a single Republican member of Congress has declared this to be disqualifying for the office of President, nor has any Executive Branch official resigned in protest. THE ENTIRE GOP IS FINE WITH PROMOTING TERRORIST ATTACKS ON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
    cc: Governor Whitmer. Trump is not promoting violence tonight against Whitmer and “all of them” (presumably Democrats). He is promoting terrorism, violence in furtherance of political goals. Say it, because his followers know exactly what he means. #StochasticTerrorism
  • user avatar
    Don't lose sight of the important story--not that Trump would assert dictatorial powers (of course he would), but that none of the appointed lawyers in the executive resign, and that *no* elected GOP officials rebuke him, let alone take more serious steps to stop him.
  • user avatar
    This must be precisely the sort of thing Congress had in mind when it ratified the Twenty-fifth Amendment.
  • user avatar
    Law students, take note: It's not a great idea for an attorney (i) to repeatedly tweet in a way ("I was only acting for my client") that undermines your client's interests, nor (ii) to publicly blackmail your client w/insinuations that you have info that would harm him.
  • user avatar
    Just so we don't lose sight of the daily degradations of the office, note that Trump's efforts to expose the whistleblower, although hardly the worst thing he's done of late, is a despicable design to undermine the law and would itself be grounds for impeachment.
  • user avatar
    Good for Justice Ginsburg to succinctly call out Justice Thomas's misuse of nomenclature: "A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a 'mother.'”
  • user avatar
    1/ You can see where this is going already: The Dems will ask Barr a billion questions about whether Trump violated 1512, and he'll parry them. But the only important question is whether Trump's conduct was remotely acceptable or consistent with his constitutional oath and duty.
  • user avatar
    Judge Sullivan petitions for rehearing en banc in Flynn mandamus case. justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…
  • user avatar
    This'll sound naive, but it really is the job of the White House Counsel and other USG attorneys to tell the POTUS that it'd be unconstitutional for him to make up emergencies that don't exist, regardless of whether courts would defer.
  • user avatar
    Dear @washingtonpost and @nytimes: PLEASE do not contribute to the hysteria: Even the Langhofer letter, weak as it is (which your stories do not mention), does *not* accuse Mueller of "illegally obtaining" emails. PLEASE change your headlines/ledes. Thanks
  • user avatar
    By this point that's hardly news--it's an ordinary day in the life of the Republic. This is the far more significant fact: Every GOP official this morning: Crickets.
    The president of the United States this morning: Shares tweet calling the FBI a “criminal organization.” Retweets a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff from Rudy Giuliani. Yesterday: Accused the speaker of the House of secretly wearing dentures.
  • user avatar
    Wow, this really is beautiful. An amazing find of an essay by the 13-year-old Ruth Bader, from Brooklyn 1946, w/words that still resonate powerfully today:
  • user avatar
    Contrarian view: This focus on whether Maguire acted properly is a huge mistake and unwise diversion, esp. since we now have the read-out and the complaint. All of the attention should be on what Trump & Giuliani did (and on whether WHC advised a cover-up of the read-out).