Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern


Senior writer @Slate. Courts and the law. Three birds and one dog.

131805 followers  •  2388 follow  •    •   http://markjosephstern.com

Inspired by misinformation from Fox News, the Washington Post, and, @mattyglesias ' tweets, I wrote a 2,500 word explainer on what D.C.'s criminal code revision does—and DOES NOT—do. It is not remotely a soft-on-crime bill. That is a false, absurd charge.🧵

I believe that commentators like @mattyglesias  , who are undoubtedly smart enough to understand this bill and surely not Fox News–pilled, have an obligation to learn about it before promoting misleading smears against it. The end. Please read the piece.

The fact that so many Supreme Court employees and clerks talked to a NYT reporter about the leak investigation really drives home how pissed people are behind the scenes. Damn.

tweet picture

🚨omg @melanielynskey  wrote a Dear Prudence column and it's exactly as amazing as you would expect—AND there are cameos from Christina Ricci and Lauren Ambrose!

The Supreme Court's first decision of the term denies retroactive compensation to veterans who were injured while serving their country. A harsh and deeply unfair result that somehow won unanimous support from the justices. @Slate 

Slate's advice week is drawing to a close, but you can read all our amazing columns here. It has been an AWESOME week! Hearing other people's crazy problems makes me feel a lot better about my own.😇

I wrote with @alex_sammon  about Kathy Hochul's latest befuddling move: vetoing a bipartisan bill that would modernize New York's wrongful death statute in a big win for the corporate lobby. Almost as if she is trying to antagonize the legislature! @Slate 

5th Circuit: The Second Amendment protects your right to possess a gun while under a restraining order for domestic violence. Vacates the conviction of an alleged domestic abuser charged with illegally possessing a firearm. h/t @steve_vladeck 

To be clear—the reason there weren't laws disarming domestic abusers in 1791 or 1868 is because women were not equal citizens and domestic violence was not deemed a criminal offense by the men who made and enforced the laws.

tweet picture

I know this decision caught a lot of people off guard, but it's really no surprise. The conservative legal movement is entirely intertwined with the gun rights cause, and gun advocates have long opposed domestic violence laws that disarm alleged abusers.

Loading
Loading

I’m haunted by this South Carolina Republican, Rep. Neal Collins, realizing that the anti-abortion bills he supported are now forcing women and girls to carry nonviable pregnancies at risk of sepsis, death, and loss of the uterus. All these outcomes were inevitable and predicted.

On the morning of Jan. 6, Ginni Thomas—wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—endorsed the protest demanding that Congress overturn the election, then sent her “LOVE” to the demonstrators, who violently overtook the Capitol several hours later. She has not posted since.

Florida appeals court affirms an order prohibiting a parentless 16-year-old from terminating her pregnancy on the grounds that she has not proved she is mature enough to get an abortion. So the state will force her to have a child instead.

tweet picture

Ginni Thomas urged Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 election by any means necessary—while her husband was ruling on cases attempting to overturn the election. A truly extraordinary level of corruption.

tweet picture

Alito's draft opinion explicitly criticizes Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing sodomy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legalizing same-sex marriage). He says that, like abortion, these decisions protect phony rights that are not "deeply rooted in history."

tweet picture

Here is Louisiana’s new fetal personhood bill—which House Republicans just voted out of committee 7–2—making abortion a crime of homicide “from the moment of fertilization” and allowing prosectors to charge patients with murder.

Justice Jackson tells the Alabama solicitor general that the Framers of the 14th Amendment did NOT intend it to be “race neutral or race blind,” so taking race into account to protect minority voting rights is perfectly constitutional. Progressive originalism at work.

Loading
Loading