@jessmarsden.bsky.social
Director of Impact Programs & Counsel @protectdemocracy.org. Opinions my own.
This ... does not end well for women!
16.10.2025 21:09 — 👍 1 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0Proud of the brave plaintiffs, cocounsel and my amazing colleagues @protectdemocracy.org for this important win!
09.10.2025 17:08 — 👍 1 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0
Header: Trump’s Backdoor Funding Cuts Subheader: Top 6 examples of funds at risk of expiring on Sept 30 due to OMB’s delay tactics $1.69B for cancer research $289M for affordable housing & small business support $479M for chronic disease prevention $1.1B for mental health services $2.6B for substance abuse treatment $2.59B for higher education access
Delays by Trump’s OMB have put billions of federal funds on track to expire on Sept 30 – funds Congress passed a law to spend on things like lifesaving cancer research, substance abuse prevention, and more. Our new report examines the top 6 examples of funds at risk: https://protdem.org/4gYT4iZ
26.09.2025 19:12 — 👍 55 🔁 36 💬 1 📌 1![The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an
unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative
task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And,
indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is
imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia
of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that—
and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand
the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to
achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing
judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and
not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources
of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insufficiently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s
its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreih3qdtlloz3yhggypbtwiveqdgzzfgapsnetvq7qsni7wfmyuovoi@jpeg)
The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And, indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that— and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insufficiently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.
Justice Jackson taking on Gorsuch's "pure textualism" and arguing for a more holistic reading of Congress' handiwork—worth reading in full. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
20.06.2025 14:37 — 👍 3986 🔁 1101 💬 126 📌 151
Jimmy on Trump’s disgusting abuse of power and what’s REALLY happening in LA…
11.06.2025 04:54 — 👍 326 🔁 120 💬 26 📌 33
States and Vendors: Do Not Comply With DOGE and USDA’s Unlawful Demands Requests to share sensitive personal data are unlawful and suggest dangerous invasions of privacy
USDA’s requests disregard the basic protections enacted by Congress to protect Americans’ sensitive data, and do not comply with the many legal requirements Congress placed on agencies before they are permitted to collect and store sensitive information about individual Americans. protect democracy More at protdem.org/usdadoge
USDA & DOGE are demanding sweeping access to sensitive info about SNAP beneficiaries. Along with @epic.org + @cendemtech.bsky.social, we’ve urged states & their vendors to decline this unlawful and dangerous invasion of privacy. Read our letter outlining the risks of complying: protdem.org/usdadoge
14.05.2025 16:48 — 👍 56 🔁 25 💬 1 📌 1
And Griffin can’t get away with challenging the rules only in counties he thinks he lost — just as the Supreme Court explained in Bush v. Gore.
06.05.2025 00:35 — 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Judge Myers is bracingly clear: election laws can’t be changed retroactively in a bid to flip the outcome of the election.
06.05.2025 00:35 — 👍 4 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0This is a victory for North Carolina voters — and an important development for future free and fair elections in this country.
06.05.2025 00:35 — 👍 9 🔁 1 💬 1 📌 0The freezing of federal grants, the firing of all inspector generals, the immunization of political violence - does everybody not see what’s happening?
In a blitzkrieg, Trump is trying to collapse our democracy - and probably our economy - and seize control.
Call it what it is.
Five alarm fire in North Carolina, where right-wing GOP majority on State Supreme Court just blocked certification of Democratic Justice Allison Riggs’ victory & appears to be laying groundwork to overturn the election www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
07.01.2025 19:54 — 👍 1290 🔁 730 💬 66 📌 112This letter from Adeel Mangi (who was nominated to the Third Circuit) to President Biden is worth reading.
"The unfortunate fact remains: we have a fundamentally broken process for choosing federal judges. This is no longer a system for evaluating fitness for judicial office."
aboutblaw.com/bgA0
More on the “zombie lawsuit” strategy from my colleague @raders.bsky.social here: protectdemocracy.org/work/the-lur...
05.12.2024 20:14 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0We sounded the alarm on the profusion of “zombie lawsuits” filed in the weeks leading up to Election Day. Turns out they didn’t matter for the presidential election, but the R NC Supreme Court candidate is trying to bring one of the zombies back to life - and disenfranchise 60K voters along the way.
05.12.2024 20:14 — 👍 2 🔁 1 💬 1 📌 0Proud to represent Michele White along with @joshuaerlich.bsky.social and the Selendy Gay team. Her story really crystallizes how election deniers' hunger for fodder destroys lives.
18.10.2024 13:59 — 👍 15 🔁 5 💬 1 📌 0
