Search for: "Marty Lederman"
Results 1 - 20
of 803
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2024, 4:27 pm
Steve Vladeck (now at Texas), Michael Dorf (Cornell), and Marty Lederman (Georgetown). [* * *] I've been hearing some buzz about whether House Speaker John A. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 6:51 pm
Anderson)”: Marty Lederman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 9:12 am
” Marty Lederman had this pre-cert. grant post at the “Lawfare” blog. [read post]
SCOTUS Ducking the Trump Eligibility Question Now will Pressure the Court to Rule in his Favor Later
16 Feb 2024, 7:56 am
Of course, the prohibition on insurrectionists holding office is already in the Constitution, but, Mitchell and amici argue, the possibility that Congress by a 2/3 vote of each house might vote lift the prohibition before Inauguration Day means that restricting ballot access is premature.For reasons I've already spelled out in the blog post and Verdict column linked above and that Marty Lederman has addressed at length on Balkinization here and elsewhere, this seems… [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 5:27 am
Professor Marty Lederman has significantly expanded his analysis of the Anderson v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 4:30 am
That question in turn raises sub-questions, as discussed thoughtfully along with discussion of many of the other issues by Professor Marty Lederman in a multi-part series on Balkinization, which also includes helpful recent contributions from Professors Bruce Ackerman, Mark Graber, and Gerard Magliocca.(9) Intertwined with some of the foregoing questions, does the case present a nonjusticiable political question? [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 1:41 pm
On the heels of some arguments raised by Marty Lederman and challenged by Richard Bernstein, I wanted to weigh in on Professor Lederman’s side–and in doing so, turn to agree with Mr. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 10:31 am
Marty Lederman recently has argued that the Electors Clause does not apply to presidential primaries because primaries elect delegates rather than electors. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 9:20 am
Because Marty focuses on the purely legal consequences of a decision affirming the Colorado Supreme Court and Bruce on the practical effects of such a decision as it's likely to be presented to the public.First, pro-Marty: All that affirming the Colorado Supreme Court decision means, legally, is that it's constitutionally permissible for a state to conclude, through its authorized processes, that Trump is disqualified from appearing on the ballot pursuant to state law… [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 8:15 am
Monday, February 05, 2024Bruce AckermanI'm afraid that Marty and I continue to disagree. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 7:55 pm
Nevertheless, in a post entitled "Marty Lederman's Fundamental Mistake of Law," he writes:[I]t does not follow, as [Marty] seems to suppose, that this principle also precludes Colorado from granting its Secretary of State the authority to exclude Trump from the state’s Republican primary if he is disqualified from the Presidency by the Fourteenth Amendment. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 5:57 pm
Anderson: Marty Lederman’s Fundamental Mistake of Law Bruce Ackerman I have learned a lot from Marty Lederman over the years, so I was surprised to find that Part 1 of his “User’s Guide to Trump v. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 1:01 pm
[Justice Scalia erred because there are no “Officers of the United States” appointed outside Article II, Section II.] [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 8:50 am
Marty Lederman (Georgetown) on <i>Trump v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 12:01 pm
Marty Lederman has ably described the political reasons why the Supreme Court might want to avoid disqualification. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 10:48 am
Thoughtful Marty Lederman blog post, responding in part (and disagreeing with) the argument raised in the amicus brief I filed with Ned Foley and Ben Ginsberg in the case. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 6:16 am
How that is consistent with the Court's broader case-or-controversy jurisprudence is an enduring mystery.Postscript: Thanks to Professor Marty Led [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 5:12 am
You can find it here (no docket number yet, via Marty Lederman). [read post]
14 Nov 2023, 6:20 am
As Marty Lederman wrote, “It’s deeply misleading for Adil to assert that this is already an established customary law requirement. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 5:55 am
For the administration to claim, as Marty Lederman reports here, that IS nonetheless remains subject to the 2001 AUMF both because of this past and because IS though now independent in some fashion claims to be the “true inheritor” of “bin Laden’s legacy” (and because AQAP and other AQ associated forces have made ambiguous statements, for whatever reason, applauding IS’s claims and achievements) is just stunning from a legal perspective. [read post]
