Twitter | Search | |
David Riegler
411
Tweets
1,054
Following
21
Followers
Tweets
David Riegler 23h
Replying to @josh_hammer
Maybe the real problem is your use of meaningless, corporate-PR-quality tropes. Precise reasoning, alas, is difficult.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler May 26
Replying to @mrddmia @nycsouthpaw
You’ve posted this over 20 times, so you must be very proud of this constitutional analysis. Good effort! Would a law allowing 16 year olds to vote for a $1,000 fee be constitutional? Why are Founding-era practices relevant here when the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964?
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler May 16
Replying to @matthewstoller
It’s very cool that you know this fact, but why is it relevant to the propriety of firing Linick *to cover up Pompeo’s unethical activities*? I fail to see how his misdeeds in a totally unrelated role are at all relevant here.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler May 7
Replying to @RandyEBarnett
Can you explain what specifically gives you this “sense”? You think these are the main considerations driving the assessments of public-health professionals?
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler May 3
Lol. A cautionary tale: faux outrage at an innocent tweet raises the risk of getting totally owned.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Apr 28
Replying to @briebriejoy
Did they not cover consequentialism in your Ethics 101 class?
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Apr 24
Very interesting, cool cool. Hey can I ask: now that hydroxychloroquine isn’t a thing, do you plan to drink bleach and shine a flashlight up your butt? Thanks.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Apr 19
Replying to @scottjshapiro
Dude was boosting hydroxychloroquine and bragging about his guns (which he definitely knows how to shoot) this week. I think we can make an educated guess.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Apr 13
What are you quoting? That’s not how quotation marks work. Nothing in the actual opinion describes legal sanctions for participating in a drive-thru service.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Apr 12
There was no order from the mayor.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Apr 6
I think you know this, but the historical doctrine of mental reservationism that Pascal dealt with has nothing to do w/ the duties of an oath taker who has a good-faith belief about an oath’s semantic content. If you disagree, can you present his supposedly airtight argument?
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Mar 31
Fair
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Mar 31
Sure. My point is that the Justices already act like kings in virtually every other major constitutional case I can think of. If Johnson is the only case in which the outcome would flip, that doesn’t seem radically different than the status quo.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Mar 31
Right, Scalia always trotted Johnson out like some sort of trophy. Any others?
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Mar 31
Well, sure, but the current conservative majority is poised to overturn all of those, right? My question was a challenge to Adler to show that the current Court isn’t already Vermuelian, since he claimed Vermuele’s theory would be some radical departure from the status quo.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Mar 31
Can you identify major constitutional cases that would have come out differently if the conservatives on the Court explicitly adopted Vermuele’s methodology? I can’t think of a single one.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Mar 29
Wouldn’t they also face incentives to offshore in competitive markets? Not every social problem is the result of market power, my dude.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Mar 15
I have a hard time believing you think Trump has handled this competently. But if you do, maybe make that case instead of answering with a performative, non-responsive quote tweet.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Mar 15
Replying to @RandyEBarnett
But apparently you still found time to mock critics of the Trump Administration’s virus response on Twitter dot com. Very odd, non-substantive defense of a silly tweet right here.
Reply Retweet Like
David Riegler Mar 11
Replying to @JoshuaJPrince
Why, exactly? What principle did this article violate, and what’s the case for accepting that principle?
Reply Retweet Like