(For example, what if a state PUC were to both require that any new data center connected to the grid be matched by an equal amount of generation and transmission capacity, and that the capex recoupment would come only from that or similar data centers, rather than rate payers in general? Or see OH:
Not to defend the WH (who probably hasn't thought this through), but electricity is already pervasively regulated at the state level, so supply/demand are already suspended to a degree. (There's a q of how the *feds* could do this, but it's presented as a "voluntary" commitment by the companies.)
FWIW, it appears this primarily screws candidates who wanted to run in the GOP primary. There was already a prominent independent candidate and the petition deadline for independent candidates isn't until May. So this could easily end up being a 3+ way race, if others similarly jump in.
Don't get me wrong - I'm in favor of this!
True - the practical impact of this rule would be to require the district court to determine both issues so that they could go up on appeal, and then to require the corut of appeals to actually reach the rights violation before clearly established. But can't you then ask the same q about cert?
(Obviously only valid as to federal court. I suspect few jurisdictions are as insane as NY in allowing appeals of any motion on notice that "affects a substantial right.")
I guess that's my question. You can't generally appeal, for example, denial of a MTD if the case is decied in your favor at SJ or trial, even if the MTD has legal findings you disagree with (e.g. about the construction of a statute). At least I didn't think so?
But this says that the def't has to have *acted* "in a manner consistent with" clearly established rights to obtain immunity. Under the bill, if the situation is entirely novel ("Is there a clearly established right not to be shot with a phaser set to stun?"), it seems like there isn't QI?
I'm also stuck on whether they intentionally reversed the burden of proof on "clearly established"? Today, QI asks whether the plaintiff has alleged/can show that the def't *violated* a right that was clearly established, so if the scenario is entirely novel, the def't wins.
Or would it be limited to arguing that there wasn't a violation at all as an alternative ground for affirmance if the plaintiff appeals the district court's dismissal? (Presumably the CoA can't affirm on Step 2 w/o reaching Step 1 first, since it is still "a court" within the meaning of (c).)
Given the way this is structured, however, could the Government even appeal an adverse finding at Step 1? Imagine the court held that (1) there was a rights violation, but (2) it wasn't clearly established, so case dismissed. The Gov't isn't aggrieved by the final judgment, so can it appeal?
It's interesting that they chose to limit that section to ICE/CBP. Those are the most salient targets right now, but it creates an odd situation in which this procedural rule wouldn't apply if the same case was brought against, e.g., an FBI/USSS agent. The basic Bivens codification would, however.
I would really like to live in a time when I can stop learning news from the gabbai announcing that we're adding tehillim because of a war started after Shabbat began...
It's pretty typical to do that for that kind of info.
FWIW, according to the NYT report, it was a Columbia owned apartment building, not a dorm. For those not familiar with the neighborhood, there are a lot of those (Columbia is the third largest landowner in NYC), and they mostly don't have on-site security any more than other buildings.
If this NYT reporting is accurate that DHS impersonated NYPD to gain access to a private residence, I hope @manhattanda.bsky.social will consider Criminal Impersonation charges. Even if it's only a misdemeanor, it would send a message and is clearly in the long term interests of *local* LE in NYC.
Of course, you can't get the 2/3 vote need for the constitutional amendment without signficant bipartisan support. So your leverage is in making clear that you will move ahead with (and have a majority for) expansion whether or not you get the votes for the amendment. A true tie b/w them won't work.
The issue is, of course, that you can't get the 2/3 vote req'd for the constitutional amendment without signficant bipartisan support. So your leverage is in making clear that you will move ahead with expansion whether or not you get the votes for the amendment. A true tie of the two doesn't work.
The issue is, of course, that you can't get the 2/3 vote req'd for the constitutional amendment without signficant bipartisan support. So your leverage is in making clear that you will move ahead with expansion whether or not you get the votes for the amendment. A true tie of the two doesn't work.
If you're doing the package deal, I might also try to work in something requiring the Senate to hold an up-or-down vote on nominess within a certain period of time to try to avoid the Garland-to-Gorsuch gamesmanship problem. But that might also be tied into how the 18 year term limit is setup.
Personally, I might add another wrinkle and either stagger any vacancies created by the amendment or push them past the next Presidential election, to avoid a President getting a windfall of appointments based on the timing of ratification, but that's an implementation detail.
(If it were somehow ratified in 2030, all of the pre-Trump justices would have served 18 years, meaning that you'd likely have Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, plus potential Trump II replacements for Thomas/Alito, and the four "expansion" picks. If those four were D noms, it would be 5-5.)
You would likely need some sort of transitional rule to get back from 13 to 9: perhaps it would be that everyone over 18 years service expired at the end of the next term, or perhaps that only the 9 most junior justices would stay. Or perhaps all could stay until their 18 year terms expired.
So the idea would be that Congress would both (1) pass a statute increasing the size of the Court to 13 and (2) propose a constitutional amendment to the states that would reduce the size of the court back to 9, prohibit future expansions w/o another amendment, and set an 18-year term limit.
I'll take a shot, even though I'm not the OP. The premise is that 18-year term limits are popular (but are difficult to accomplish w/o a const. amendment), while increasing the size of the court to 13 is relatively unpopular, but unquestionably is somehing Congress can do by ordinary legislation.
Yeah, of all the horrific stuff in this story, for once I'm not sure CBP was the worst actor.
(And FWIW, the ME apparently ruled out exposure or homicide as causes, although abandoning a vulnerable individual without family or someone to pick him up is still horrible even if it wasn't the COD.)
(To be clear, I think they would be justified in refusing to invite Trump even if his election were 100% constitutionally legitimate on the grounds that his *actions* in office have been equally fundamentally anti-constitutional.)
Or send the invitation to Vance just to see him squirm.
(I seem to recall that you may have said you think he was also illegitimately elected, but since the House isn't going to bypass the Speaker/PPT on constitutional grounds to get to Rubio, Vance would be the best version of this stunt.)
(There were, BTW, 61 currently living recipients before tonight, so non-posthumous awards were more common than you might have thought.)
mohmuseum.org/medal-recipi...
Almost certainly the first time two were given in one night...
