Wednesday Writs: Trump’s Impeachment Response, Spellchecked and Explained

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

21 Responses

  1. Saul Degraw says:

    Looks like Gamestop is going to end with a lot of people losing their shirts because they got caught up in the hype of s speculative bubble: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/02/gamestop-stock-plunge-losers/Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    L3 is interesting. I’m looking forward to seeing how things turn out.

    If I had to guess, I’d say that a handful of short-sighted entrepreneurs will open up shop and quickly discover that there is a Supremacy Clause thing going on (and, tax issues… can’t forget the tax issues).

    This will help things for homeless people to some extent.

    The BIG change, if there is going to be a big change, will be in law enforcement. The whole “I detected the distinct odor of drugs, drugs, drugs and knocked on the door” will no longer be allowed to kick off an interaction with the police. I wonder what will replace it.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

      The “War on Drugs” was never about drugs, though it has certainly played out as a war . . .Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

      Did I hear a plaintive cry for help?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        “I heard a man’s voice, raised in anger, and a woman crying. He was clearly threatening the woman. I didn’t know which house it was coming from, so I picked one. I was then attacked by a dog and was in fear for my life. How was I supposed to know that these teenagers were watching The Shining as part of a ‘Black People Review White People Horror Movies’ livestream?”Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Jaybird says:

      As I understood it during the election, the decriminalization initiative takes any state-court charge of intoxicant possession or use into a medical problem. You will still pay a fee to the court if found in possession or under the influence of an intoxicant, but it’s not a punitive fee and it’s not reported as such on your criminal record. You then get diverted to a treatment facility that is certified by the state for [something something I’m not real clear on the exact criteria] and have to complete a class that meets [something something minimum criteria that again I don’t really know very well]. Then the matter is done.

      I didn’t think I needed to fully understand the criteria for treatment to think it’s a good idea and fine-tuning what that criteria might be could be something to address and revise later after some experience is gathered, with the opinions and advice of subject matter experts.

      Federal law enforcement and Federal courts will continue to proceed with enforcement of Federal laws. But that sort of prosecution is going to be pretty rare just because there isn’t nearly as much Federal law enforcement in the first place.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Burt Likko says:

        Hrm. When I read your first paragraph, I think that I see two different disparate impacts.

        Someone on the right side of the tracks gets busted. Fee is no problem. Class is no problem if it is also offered nights/weekends. But God help you if your employer finds out that you’ve been diverted to a treatment facility.

        Someone on the wrong side of the tracks gets busted. Employers somewhat more likely to be understanding of the whole treatment facility thing but the fee and the class are much more onerous.

        Will there be as many busts? I suppose it depends on the fee.

        (Oooh, there will be an impact on Civil Forfeiture… that’s going to be interesting.)Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to Jaybird says:

          Both observations are true. But in no care are (state-level) criminal charges going to be brought, which is still a benefit to either the privileged individual who gets found out by a not-understanding employer, or the not-privileged individual who has to struggle to come up with the bucks to pay the fee and pay for the class.

          Oregon being Oregon, I suspect judges will be given guidance to waive the fee in cases of indigency and low- or no-cost classes will be available, but those things are a) more likely to be available if at all in urban centers like Portland, Salem, and Eugene, leaving folks from more rural areas SOL; and b) still not complete answers to the accessibility problem.

          So it won’t be perfect. But it’ll be an improvement.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Burt Likko says:

            Yes, it is positive movement. My complaints are more of the form “I hope the positive movement does not stall out” than “this is bad and people who like it are bad”.

            I hope that it results in more states saying “we should do that!”

            But not if it’s related to, say, fees.Report

  3. Burt Likko says:

    L1 (and footnote): Impeachment is not an attainder. If impeachment were an attainder, that means the Framers of the original Constitution authorized Congress to do a thing and, simultaneously, prohibited Congress from doing that very same thing. The only way to interpret the Constitution as being coherent is to assume that these are different kinds of proceedings, which I’m quite confident has substantial history going back into Ye Olde British Common Law.Report

    • Em Carpenter in reply to Burt Likko says:

      Yeah, the link to Bloomberg there in that paragraph calls out how ridiculous it is.Report

    • PD Shaw in reply to Burt Likko says:

      The bill of attainder argument was raised in the Belknap impeachment to assert a narrow reading of the impeachment power. Essentially the argument was that the founders were so wary of the abuses of English trial by legislatures, that the scope of the impeachment power should be strictly construed to only apply to the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States.” Under this analysis, its extending the scope of the impeachment power to former officials that comes into conflict with the prohibition on bills of attainder.Report

  4. L7: “They can’t put millions and hundreds of thousands in jail.”

    Let’s hope he’s right, but the Gulag did.Report

  5. L1:

    Roy Cohn was Trump’s role model. I wonder if he thinks he’s hired David Schine.Report