User Overview

Followers and Following

Followers
Following
Trendsmap

History

Total Followers - Last Year
Daily Follower Change - Last Year
Daily Tweets - Last Year

Tweet Stats

Analysed 26,491 tweets, tweets from the last 273 weeks.
Tweets Day of Week (UTC)
Tweets Hour of Day (UTC)
Key:
Tweets
Retweets
Quotes
Replies
Tweets Day and Hour Heatmap (UTC)

Tweets

Last 50 tweets from @steve_vladeck
In case you’re wondering, Daniel Vogelbach has one career triple:

pic.twitter.com/KPr2LdJnTU
Replying to @steve_vladeck
Then this happened:
 
In case you’re wondering, Daniel Vogelbach has one career triple:

 
Vogelbach triple > Bart homer.
 
Over/under 12 hours before Trump starts publicly criticizing/attacking Judge Dearie.

I’m taking the under.
 
“I refuse to fully participate in the process that I somehow convinced a district judge I appointed to require on my behalf.”
JUST IN: Special Master Dearie has asked Trump's team for declarations about any acftions he's taken to declassify material. Trump's team says i n a filing tonight that it is resisting that request — because it could be a defense to any criminal cahrges. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… pic.twitter.com/fCeF7PnJKv
 
John’s whole thread is worth reading, but I want to underscore this point. I’ve always found it *so* helpful to not just think through what I’d say to some of the more difficult questions I expect at an oral argument, but to literally say them out loud. The muscle memory is real.
In reply to @johnpelwood
It may seem stupid, but it's worthwhile actually saying your answers out loud--it helps develop muscle memory to avoid stumbling over words, distills answers to make them more conversational, & drills cites/case names into your head so you don't need to look at the binder. /end
 
Steve Vladeck Retweeted ·  
Just filed at #SCOTUS: Our new amicus brief on why Texas's transparent judge shopping ought to way against its effort to block the Biden Administration's immigration enforcement priorities — including data on how what Texas is doing is *much* worse than blue states suing Trump:
 
There was a typo in my tweet which I noted and corrected down-thread.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
I see your point but am unimpressed when advocates complain bitterly that the other party has perfected a technique that they rely upon.
Replying to @fredzannarbor
Maybe read the brief, which explains how Democrats have *not* engaged in the same behavior, before breezily asserting that they do? Or nah?
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
I see the difference, but I don't think the moral judgment of "much worse" is justified simply because blue state AGs bat .750 and a "special" red state uses its unique characteristics to bat .995. Is it Eddie Gaedel "much worse" because he gets on base 99% of the time?
Replying to @fredzannarbor
If you think it’s about batting average, then respectfully, you *don’t* see the point. Random assignment among 10 judges, 7 of whom are Democratic appointees, isn’t the same as a 95% chance of drawing a *specific* district judge. The latter looks (and *is*) far more manipulative.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
Rather than Texas being "much worse", data shows that Texas is merely "much more efficient at" forum-shopping than blue state AGs, which is unsurprising considering that bad trends trend quickly to perfection. Agree that forum-shopping and national injunctions need to stop.
Replying to @fredzannarbor
The brief is at pains to distinguish between "forum shopping" and "judge shopping," and to demonstrate that what Texas is doing is the *latter,* not the former. If you don't see that there's a difference, then I think you may have missed the point.
 
In reply to @mjs_DC
I agree with you but how is this any different than litigants filing cases in San Francisco or New York all the time?
We specifically address this in section I.C of the brief. See pp. 16–19.
 
Steve Vladeck Retweeted ·  
In reply to @mjs_DC
 
Steve Vladeck Retweeted ·  
Such an important brief. The chart at the end really tells the whole story: At Texas' behest, a handful of Trump judges have halted vast swathes of Biden's agenda on the thinnest of pretexts. SCOTUS cannot keep rewarding this brazen partisan manipulation of the lower courts.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
(This brief is a longer and more in-depth version of a brief we filed earlier this summer in the federal government's unsuccessful attempt to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal. The expanded version is in support of the federal government's appeal on the merits.)
Replying to @steve_vladeck
Ack. "Weigh." Darnit, lack-of-edit button!
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
Here's a link to the brief: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2… I'm enormously grateful to @LinzCHarrison, @samungar, and their colleagues at @JennerBlockLLP, and to Max Wolson and his team at @NILC, without all of whom this brief would not have been possible.
Replying to @steve_vladeck
(This brief is a longer and more in-depth version of a brief we filed earlier this summer in the federal government's unsuccessful attempt to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal. The expanded version is in support of the federal government's appeal on the merits.)
 
Just filed at #SCOTUS: Our new amicus brief on why Texas's transparent judge shopping ought to way against its effort to block the Biden Administration's immigration enforcement priorities — including data on how what Texas is doing is *much* worse than blue states suing Trump: pic.twitter.com/kZWsKmm56Q
Replying to @steve_vladeck
Here's a link to the brief: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2… I'm enormously grateful to @LinzCHarrison, @samungar, and their colleagues at @JennerBlockLLP, and to Max Wolson and his team at @NILC, without all of whom this brief would not have been possible.
 
Just filed at #SCOTUS: Our new amicus brief on why Texas's transparent judge shopping ought to way against its effort to block the Biden Administration's immigration enforcement priorities — including data on how what Texas is doing is *much* worse than blue states suing Trump:
 
This is fascinating. It's also consistent with Founding-era ambivalence over whether the Attorney General was an officer of the executive branch or an officer of the courts (or a weird hybrid of both).

The Judiciary Act of 1789 (which created the AG) didn't expressly resolve it.
Replying to @steve_vladeck
The Act did not create a "department" (that wouldn't happen until 1870); and, although it created the position of Attorney General, it was silent on how that office was to be filled — or even by *whom.*
 
This is fascinating. It's also consistent with Founding-era ambivalence over whether the Attorney General was an officer of the executive branch or an officer of the courts (or a weird hybrid of both).

The Judiciary Act of 1789 (which created the AG) didn't expressly resolve it.
Here’s something quite amazing. The OLC wrote a powerful memo explaining why the Attorney General's independence is vital to our constitutional system. It reads as if it had been drafted this morning, in response to today’s political landscape, but …. /1 knightcolumbia.org/documents/jwhw… pic.twitter.com/ssAKk7b7sR
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
What about govt subsidized businesses like FB? It’s a DARPA platform designed to use our clicks against us. Shouldn’t we have a say in what goes on with stuff like that?
Replying to @randognsac @mmasnick and 1 otherfalse
“Shouldn’t we have a say” is moving the goalposts. No one is saying these platforms should be exempt from any government regulation. But the claim that the regulation should protect our First Amendment rights is fatally flawed at its inception. We don’t have any in this context.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
Am I getting this right? You are arguing that giant government subsidized social media platforms have 1st amendment rights and they were violated. They have a right to censor and violate human beings 1st amendment rights. That taking this power away from FB is wrong? Why?
Replying to @randognsac @mmasnick and 1 otherfalse
Let’s start with the fact that we have no First Amendment rights for private businesses to violate, and go from there. I have lots of issues with how social media platforms moderate content, but the (non-existent) First Amendment rights of their users isn’t one of them.
 
The @NSLpodcast team is on the hunt for Episode 222…
 
SCOTUS did not block HB20, they stayed an injunction until the appeals court released their opinion, and they did not rule on the merits of the law. Why do you have a blue checkmark if all you do is lie?
Replying to @BehizyTweets
#SCOTUS didn’t stay an injunction. It vacated the Fifth Circuit’s stay to put the injunction back into effect. Although that injunction is what was reversed yesterday, SCOTUS’s ruling is a pretty strong sign of how the Court is likely to rule on the merits — which was my point.
 
If you’re looking for a good overview of just how practically and legally bonkers yesterday’s Fifth Circuit ruling upholding Texas’s ban on content moderation by large social media platforms truly is, @mmasnick has you covered over at @techdirt:

techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th…
Replying to @steve_vladeck
If you prefer the meme version, @MediaLawProf nailed it:
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SAYS YOU HAVE TO LET ME DO THIS ON YOUR WEBSITE FOREVER pic.twitter.com/2MYHZpg0fN
 
If you’re looking for a good overview of just how practically and legally bonkers yesterday’s Fifth Circuit ruling upholding Texas’s ban on content moderation by large social media platforms truly is, @mmasnick has you covered over at @techdirt:

techdirt.com/2022/09/16/5th…
5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate
techdirt.com
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
You don't have it NOW, Steve.
Replying to @smmarotta @jkosseff
I mean, there’s a PDF and everything.
 
Replying to @jkosseff
Boy do I have the book for you!
 
10/10. No notes.
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SAYS YOU HAVE TO LET ME DO THIS ON YOUR WEBSITE FOREVER pic.twitter.com/2MYHZpg0fN
 
The good news is that it’s not long for this world. #SCOTUS has already blocked #HB20, and the circuit split with the 11th Circuit will almost surely be resolved in the latter’s favor.

The bad news is that it’s not an outlier; it’s emblematic of what this court does every day.
In reply to @mmasnick
It really is the most angrily incoherent First Amendment decision I think I’ve ever read.
 
I am old-fashioned, but I would think that inferior courts start with what the Supreme Court has said the text means. pic.twitter.com/TJnu8DzEQz
Replying to @OrinKerr
Especially in a case in which the Supreme Court has <checks notes> already issued an interim ruling that’s supposed to be based at least largely on the Justices’ views of the merits. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
 
<Insert hot dog costume meme.gif>
We need to counter today’s tribalism and build ‘a more perfect union,’ Federal judges Bernice B. Donald and Don R. Willett write in a guest opinion wapo.st/3S8gYKZ
 
It’s fascinating — if entirely unsurprising — that the Fifth Circuit seems wholly untroubled by the fact that #SCOTUS already *blocked* this same law from going into effect (after the Fifth Circuit in May had stayed a district court injunction).
The Fifth Circuit opinion just dropped, upholding Texas's law compelling social media sites to host speech they don't want to host.

techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
Is thrrr a scenario where the stay is granted pending appeal of merits of certain issues, which effectively allows govt to proceed/complete investigation of these docs?
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
I have a LOT of experience covering Special Masters -- I've covered the three most relevant ones as close as anyone. I was pretty sure from the start this was going to go the way it has so far.
Replying to @emptywheel
That experience has, quite obviously, served you well. But how does it change that I didn’t say what you claim I did?
 
In reply to @emptywheel
I never said I was “certain” about anything with Judge Cannon. I suggested, instead, that some of her earlier rulings were not necessarily as big a deal as they were made out to be, but I’ve been even clearer that the more recent ones are — and are indefensible. Nuances get lost.
Feel free to criticize me for being less cynical at those earlier stages, but please don’t put words into my mouth.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
I actually think SCOTUS will rule on this. But I also recall you being certain this Cannon thing was NBD.
Replying to @emptywheel
I never said I was “certain” about anything with Judge Cannon. I suggested, instead, that some of her earlier rulings were not necessarily as big a deal as they were made out to be, but I’ve been even clearer that the more recent ones are — and are indefensible. Nuances get lost.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
Steve, I think you are amazing and I know you are shooting for an audience other than myself. The idea of Justice Thomas having objectivity seems far fetched at best, but not having a legal background I don't know whether Douglas stepping down is a good or bad thing. Help please?
Replying to @ToSkinADonkey
That’s a reference to Justice Douglas, who retired in 1975, and was the last Justice who would ever issue emergency relief to which his colleagues objected, forcing them to overrule him in some high-profile cases.
 
But really we do need more justices in remote phone booths unilaterally ordering ends to illegal wars of choice
Replying to @MikeSacksEsq
It’s the anecdote with which I begin the book…
 
I get that folks are cynical, but if the Trump case ends up in #SCOTUS, it’s not going to matter that Justice Thomas happens to be the Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit. There’s *no* scenario in which he’d decide this by himself, rather than referring it to the full Court.
Replying to @steve_vladeck
To be clear, orders by a single Justice can be reviewed by the full Court. But it’s been a *long* time since the full Court overruled a denial of emergency relief by a single Justice—largely because it’s been a rarity, since Douglas stepped down, for single Justices to go rogue.
 
I get that folks are cynical, but if the Trump case ends up in #SCOTUS, it’s not going to matter that Justice Thomas happens to be the Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit. There’s *no* scenario in which he’d decide this by himself, rather than referring it to the full Court.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
Duping people? What were they duped about? How is their condition worse In Martha’s Vineyard—or anywhere else in the Boston area—as compared to some border town in Texas?
Replying to @tar_revenge
They were made promises and given false representations about what awaited them on the far end of the flight. They may actually be better off in MA, but that’s not *why* this happened. And if you don’t see that, I can’t help you.
 
Next stop, the Eleventh Circuit.
BREAKING: Judge CANNON has denied DOJ's motion for a partial stay and has appointed Raymond DEARIE as special master.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
What exactly is the horror of Martha’s Vineyard?
Replying to @tar_revenge
Duping desperate people into getting on a plane by lying to them about where they’re going and what awaits them entirely so that you can use them as a partisan political prop? You’re right. That’s totally appropriate behavior by our elected officials. Give me a break.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
When virtue signaling is the *depth* of your politics, and not just an unfortunate patina, you’re sunk.
Replying to @tar_revenge
That you think it’s nothing more than virtue signaling to express horror over what’s going on proves my point quite nicely, thanks.
 
When schadenfreude is the *point* of our politics, and not just an unfortunate byproduct, we really are sunk.
 
Steve Vladeck Retweeted ·  
We're live, talking about the gerrymandered maps in four states ahead of November's midterm elections.

@steve_vladeck, Bertrall Ross, Evan Milligan, and Khadidah Stone are with us.

wamu.fm/3QNrYwr
1A Remaking America: When parties pick their voters
the1a.org
 
The 1968 Tigers won the World Series, so that means everything is fine, right??
The Mets are the only team in the Divisional Era (1969) to get swept at home while 35+ games OVER .500 against a team 20+ games UNDER .500.

Last team to suffer such a sweep: Detroit Tigers in the final 3 games of the 1968 regular season.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
Steve, good news, I made it up!
I know you did. The mental image is the problem.
 
In reply to @steve_vladeck
I didn't criticize your tweet for being inconsistent! I criticized it because the story today is that SCOTUS threw a brushback pitch at over-aggressive use of the shadow docket, not that Alito's jurisprudence isn't logically consistent.
Replying to @dilanesper
The order literally invites Yeshiva to come right back once it dots the i’s in state court. You and I have different definitions of what a brushback pitch is.
 
 
Free access is provided to the 8 hour timeframe for this page.

A Trendsmap Explore subscription provides full access to all available timeframes

Find out more

This account is already logged in to Trendsmap.
Your subscription allows access for one user. If you require access for more users, you can create additional subscriptions.
Please Contact us if you are interested in discussing discounts for 3+ users for your organisation, or have any other queries.