Great thread from my colleague, coadjutor, and friend Holly Brewer, demonstrating (yet again) the rank nonsense of attorney Sauer's argument. One hopes the C.J. (possibly the swing vote on the Court), a sometime history major, will get the point.

Of course, that doesn't help explain why the framers, who explicitly included legislative immunity in the Speech or Debate clause, didn't include such immunity for the president.

As a couple of the liberal justices pointed out, that absence seems significant. 5/end

My thoughts on yesterday's SCOTUS hearing and the historians' contribution to it. Brennan Center

youtube.com/watch?v=UtcmdQ…

Sauer is now conceding in response to questions from ABC that most of the acts for which DJT was indicted are PRIVATE ACTS -- meaning a concession that, whatever the scope of any immunity, it does not apply to these acts. He just conceded 90% of the case, in my view.
Jed Shugerman

ok all you Cubs fans and concerned citizens--thanks to the breaking news AZ indictments of fake electors, I am not on Last Word tonight but may be tomorrow. Hope springs eternal in the human breast . . .

I will be appearing again on The Last Word around 20 minutes into the program tonight to offer some historical reflections on the putative, puzzling, mystifying theory of presidential immunity, the subject of tomorrow's oral argument at SCOTUS.

As an alumnus ('68) I find this both deeply moving and saddening, especially when one considers the gloomy forecasts of the fate of the hostages. And it is a bitter irony that the translation function turns the second Haverford into Warford (i.e. 'the Warford').
Haverford College

via @NYTOpinion. My piece in the ⁦The New York Times⁩ on the links between immigrant detention and incarceration. A peek into my new book In the Shadow of Liberty ⁦Viking Books⁩. Thanks to amazing NYT editor ⁦Isvett⁩ for all her support. nytimes.com/2024/04/14/opi…

This is an amazingly informative interview.

haaretz.com/israel-news/20…