Walter Shaub @waltshaub former Director of @OfficeGovEthics now with @CREWcrew personal account - views are my own May. 13, 2019 1 min read

"Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent.”

Translation for non-lawyers: "We don't have to follow precedents we disagree with." This may water down the concept of "precedent."

Justice Breyer's dissent concludes: "Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next."

Translation for non-lawyers: "I'm not saying you should necessarily freak out yet, but I'm not saying it would be unreasonable to freak out."

You can follow @waltshaub.


Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.