Ted Bartelstone’s Post

🚨 BREAKING: President Biden is endorsing three reforms to the Supreme Court: 1. No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office 2. Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices 3. Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court Kyle Griffin X Vice President Harris endorses the Supreme Court reforms laid out by President Biden: "…President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms – from imposing term limits for Justices’ active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge. And finally, in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House." President Biden: "This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one."

President Biden's proposal to reform the Supreme Court (https://lnkd.in/gdsdqF-m) is both timely and interesting. He understandably focuses on the need for an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court and criticizes the Court for its recent ruling on presidential immunity. But ultimately his proposals -- especially the plan to eliminate life tenure for Supreme Court justices in favor of staggered 18-year appointments -- would require Constitutional Amendments and are likely non-starters in the current legislative environment. Indeed, the President's proposals could be called more political than practical in nature. For an alternative (and, I believe, more workable) vision of Supreme Court reform, please check out my Law360 article from September 2020 (https://lnkd.in/g6u5MiPr), which offers three practical solutions for how the Supreme Court can be made less politicized and more accountable without the need for constitutional amendments. In brief, the proposals are (a) a merit selection panel for all federal court appointments, including SCOTUS, (b) a mechanism to fill temporary vacancies on SCOTUS (including from illnesses and recusals) through designation assignments, and (c) transforming SCOTUS to sit and hear cases in panels of 7 Justices out of a total of 13 on the Court at any time. I would welcome thoughts on these proposals and how they compare to the President's plan.

BERSIH refers to a statement by YB Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) yesterday that the initiative to separate the powers of the Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor will be implemented in phases over two years after a study in three countries. Based on this development, BERSIH is concerned that this major reform agenda may be delayed until the eve of the next general election, and may not even be completed by the current Unity Government's term. 🔗 Click the link below to read more https://lnkd.in/g-52wxHt

Victoria Walker and I have been anticipatedly awaiting the recent Supreme Court judgement in Potanina v Potanin in relation to applications for permission to bring a Part III claim. It is interesting to learn that Supreme Court have corrected the previous interpretation of the law, stating that the threshold to bring such a case must be higher than simply having a "good arguable case". It must be solid with a real prospect of success. On the contrary, the threshold for setting aside a without notice order granting leave is now lower, ensuring that each party has the opportunity to be heard as to why a case should or should not be granted permission. It seems we may be waiving goodbye to short, 30 minute ex-parte hearings to decide if permission should be granted with the potential for the Court to start listing on notice hearings with time estimates between 2 hours and half a day! 👋 https://lnkd.in/dZKKgyMH #PartIII #internationalfamilylaw #familylaw #financialremedies

The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment - PDF: https://lnkd.in/g-pkN9ga In the aftermath of the events of January 6, 2021, in and around the U.S. Capitol, there have been calls for accountability for those who participated, as well as for those who may have helped instigate it. The breach of the Capitol resulted in numerous injuries, multiple deaths, and significant property damage. It also delayed Congress’s constitutional duty of certifying electoral votes for President-elect Joseph Biden and caused Capitol Police and other law enforcement personnel to evacuate the Vice President and Members of Congress from the House and Senate floors to safer locations. Some observers, historians, and other commentators are wondering whether the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment might provide a mechanism to disqualify individuals who participated in or encouraged the siege, including former and sitting government officials, from holding office.  Invocation of the Disqualification Clause raises a number of novel legal questions involving the activities that could trigger disqualification, the offices to which disqualification might apply, and the mechanisms to enforce disqualification. The clause has been seldom used, and the few times it has been used in the past mainly arose out of the Civil War—a very different context from the events of January 6. It is therefore unclear to what extent historical precedents provide useful guidance for its application to the events of January 6. This Legal Sidebar describes the Disqualification Clause, explains to whom it might apply and what activities could incur a bar on holding office, and discusses possible mechanisms to implement it. 

The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment - PDF: https://lnkd.in/g-pkN9ga In the aftermath of the events of January 6, 2021, in and around the U.S. Capitol, there have been calls for accountability for those who participated, as well as for those who may have helped instigate it. The breach of the Capitol resulted in numerous injuries, multiple deaths, and significant property damage. It also delayed Congress’s constitutional duty of certifying electoral votes for President-elect Joseph Biden and caused Capitol Police and other law enforcement personnel to evacuate the Vice President and Members of Congress from the House and Senate floors to safer locations. Some observers, historians, and other commentators are wondering whether the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment might provide a mechanism to disqualify individuals who participated in or encouraged the siege, including former and sitting government officials, from holding office. Invocation of the Disqualification Clause raises a number of novel legal questions involving the activities that could trigger disqualification, the offices to which disqualification might apply, and the mechanisms to enforce disqualification. The clause has been seldom used, and the few times it has been used in the past mainly arose out of the Civil War—a very different context from the events of January 6. It is therefore unclear to what extent historical precedents provide useful guidance for its application to the events of January 6. This Legal Sidebar describes the Disqualification Clause, explains to whom it might apply and what activities could incur a bar on holding office, and discusses possible mechanisms to implement it. 

In case you missed it, proposed changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and Federal Rule of Evidence 801 have been posted. The comment period runs through February 17, 2025. The proposed amendment to Rule 29 would eliminate consent of all parties as a basis for filing an amicus brief. Amicus could only appear with leave of court. The amendments would also change the requires of a motion for leave to file to include required disclosures of any relationship between amicus and a party. The proposed amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(A) would remove the requirement that a prior inconsistent statement be made under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, other proceeding, or deposition. The amendment would make all prior inconsistent statements of a testifying witness admissible as a non-hearsay exclusion. #jeffisappealing #jeffsappealing #appellatelinkedin https://lnkd.in/e3t9v4Mr

In this Law360 piece, Eric Reicin, President and CEO of BBB National Programs, provides a comprehensive examination of the Supreme Court's recent #ChevronDeference ruling and its profound implications for regulatory #governance and industry #SelfRegulation. Read the full opinion piece below or here: https://lnkd.in/eWxaGGHA

What did I read today? The recent Court of Appeal case below confirmed that there is no existing legal precedent on the applicability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel to a public officer who has relied on the Three-Year Limitation Period in s. 2(a) PAPA. So, can a public officer be estopped from relying on the defence of limitation? ANSWER : YES WHY? 1. The Three-Year Limitation Period is a procedural defence and not a substantive one. 2. There is no reason in principle and policy why equitable estoppel doctrine cannot be invoked against public officers and/or Government/Public Authority in respect of the Three-Year Limitation Period 3. A public officers and Government/Public Authority should not make statements and/or conduct themselves in a manner which may cause any person to be irreparably prejudiced.

Let’s do it