This description of Alito simply dismissing women's reliance interest in Roe seemed so absurd, I thought @martylederman.bsky.social must have been exaggerating.
But apparently not.
Check it out:
Kathleen Clark
@kathleenclark.bsky.social
7.5K followers 266 following 2.8K posts
Attorney - Professor - Views are my own, not my employer. she/her
![While the boundaries on lawyer “coaching” may be uncertain in some circumstances, they are not uncertain here, for it is crystal clear that "[a]n attorney must respect the important ethical distinction between discussing testimony and seeking improperly to influence it." Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 90 n.3 (1976). Thus, when Mr. Passantino counseled Ms. Hutchinson to “respond in a way that avoid[ed] providing information, as, for example, by denying memory of the events under inquiry,” he led her into “testimonial obduracy” that was plainly improper. In re Weiss, 703 F.2d 653, 662 (2d Cir. 1983).62 That Mr. Passantino also advised Ms. Hutchinson that she should testify truthfully highlights that he knew it, too. Nevertheless, in an attempt to end run this elemental standard, he sought to stretch her understanding of the boundaries of the truth. The outcome was false testimony to the Committee that she did not recall events that she plainly remembered in detail – testimony that she immediately told Mr. Passantino she regretted.
This effort by Mr. Passantino to shape Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony violated at least three related provisions of Rule 3.3 that require “candor to a tribunal” – an obligation made applicable in Rule 3.9 to representation of clients before Congress.63
First, because Mr. Passantino knowingly counseled or assisted Ms. Hutchinson in presenting false testimony to the Committee, he violated DC Rule 3.4(b), which provides that “a lawyer shall not knowingly . . . counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely.” In her initial interviews with the Committee, Ms. Hutchinson followed his advice, and testified repeatedly that she had no recollection of matters as to which she actually had detailed knowledge – and Mr. Passantino knew it. Likewise, Mr. Passantino was responsible for offering false testimony through her in violation of DC Rule 3.3 (a)(4), prohibiting a lawyer from “knowingly... offer[ing] evidence that the lawyer knows to be false....”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5cn3kbi4g5blrtahon34xbu4/bafkreihuevvdilzt6orn4syn3pjqmujq256btgiz6dggelan66ppplyfza)
![Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
A PENTAGON CAMPAIGN Retired
officers have been used to shape
terrorism coverage from inside the
TV and radio networks.
By David Barstow
April 20, 2008
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo
Bay. ...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. ...they put a
group of retired military officers on ... [a] jet[] ... and flew
them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on
television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative
and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used
those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime
performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit
ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties
to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the
networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts
represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or
consultants.
...
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and
information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse an instrument
intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5cn3kbi4g5blrtahon34xbu4/bafkreigihyqihdwd4zxz3bfhz5m6b5tf7bv2cru4engzaq2whrzwxsdfry)
![https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5360131
The Chadha Presidency
Josh Chafetz†
[This is a draft of an article forthcoming
in volume 115 of the GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL.]
Abstract
Where is Congress? Why hasn’t it reined in some of the worst abuses of the Trump Administration?
This Article argues that a significant part of the answer to this oft-voiced lament lies in a 1983
Supreme Court case, INS v. Chadha.
Beginning in the 1930s, Congress had developed a procedure called the legislative veto, by which
it could nullify executive-branch exercises of delegated power. In Chadha, the Court held that all
legislative vetoes are unconstitutional—thereby striking down provisions in hundreds of statutes.
It also made the highly consequential but often overlooked choice to sever the legislative veto from
the delegation of authority to the executive, thereby leaving in place only one side of a bargain
between Congress and the presidency. The executive could still make use of delegated power, free
from the post-hoc check of the legislative veto.
Among the myriad statutes whose legislative veto provisions were invalidated by Chadha were
some of the most important post-Watergate presidency-constraining statutes, including the War
Powers Resolution, the Impoundment Control Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the National
Emergencies Act, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Remarkably, all of these
statutes have been the subject of high-profile interbranch conflicts during Donald Trump’s time in
the White House.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5cn3kbi4g5blrtahon34xbu4/bafkreibpjahaz5xsetvtx7pjciwr5pmgdotqeounlr7zd5lo2cqrt2npnm)
![8. EFTA01022356. The in camera documents show that the redacted text contains the identity of two Victims. First, the recipient of the email was determined a potential victim and
therefore redacted consistent with the Attorney Review Protocol. Second, the individual referred to in the text of the email was also determined to be a potential victim from the context of the email and because the individual shares a name with a person who is represented by counsel with whom DOJ has communicated and that counsel has requested the individual be treated as a Victim.
[footnote:]
... For purposes of this review (and relevant redactions), victims include individuals identified as victims, or potential victims, through the Department’s prior prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell as well as all individuals who have (directly or through counsel) been identified, including self-identified, to the Department as potential victims of state or federal offenses or other claims of sexual exploitation or misconduct by Epstein or Maxwell.”).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5cn3kbi4g5blrtahon34xbu4/bafkreiauul5levjfdmaaytqvoiicslzv25pkiothf2n3hglnthojt2xzye)
