Monday, July 1, 2024

Writing for the ages

Email to Alabama law profession
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: Brannon Buck <bbuck@badhambuck.com>; Terri B. Lovell <terri.lovell@alabar.org>; mckinney@watsonmckinney.com <mckinney@watsonmckinney.com>; suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org <suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org>; flatta@burr.com <flatta@burr.com>; wbrewbak@law.ua.edu <wbrewbak@law.ua.edu>; sgarrett@bsol.com <sgarrett@bsol.com>; ccampbell@faulkner.edu <ccampbell@faulkner.edu>; blakehudson@samford.edu <blakehudson@samford.edu>; christy.crow@jinkscrow.com <christy.crow@jinkscrow.com>; richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com <richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com>; daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov <daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov>; baldwinDA@baldwincountyal.gov <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; "baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov" <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; bob@schreiberadr.com <bob@schreiberadr.com>; jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>; jws@willsellers.com <jws@willsellers.com>; cdobson@maynardnexsen.com <cdobson@maynardnexsen.com>; jwilson@birminghambar.org <jwilson@birminghambar.org>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 at 11:23:32 AM CDT
Subject: Helping lowly Alabamians understand what SCOTUS has now written for the ages?
Can you refer me to anyone in the Alabama law profession who would be willing to assist me in helping lowly Alabamians understand what SCOTUS has now written for the ages concerning Presidential immunity? Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Writing for the ages (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com)
Thanks.

Email to Alabama TV stations
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: shannon.isbell@wbrc.com <shannon.isbell@wbrc.com>; Susana Schuler <susana.schuler@hearst.com>; brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com <brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com>; jama.killingsworth@waff.com <jama.killingsworth@waff.com>; Mike Wright <mwright@waaytv.com>; Kay Norred <knorred@wvua23.com>; rmartin@cbs42.com <rmartin@cbs42.com>; Baylor Long <blong@hearst.com>; dwingard@wsfa.com <dwingard@wsfa.com>; news@mynbc15.com <news@mynbc15.com>; randy.merrow@fox10tv.com <randy.merrow@fox10tv.com>; gmcdonald@waka.com <gmcdonald@waka.com>; comments@abc3340.com <comments@abc3340.com>; newstip@abc3340.com <newstip@abc3340.com>; wvtm13@wvtm.com <wvtm13@wvtm.com>
Cc: Brannon Buck <bbuck@badhambuck.com>; Terri B. Lovell <terri.lovell@alabar.org>; mckinney@watsonmckinney.com <mckinney@watsonmckinney.com>; suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org <suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org>; flatta@burr.com <flatta@burr.com>; wbrewbak@law.ua.edu <wbrewbak@law.ua.edu>; sgarrett@bsol.com <sgarrett@bsol.com>; ccampbell@faulkner.edu <ccampbell@faulkner.edu>; blakehudson@samford.edu <blakehudson@samford.edu>; christy.crow@jinkscrow.com <christy.crow@jinkscrow.com>; richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com <richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com>; daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov <daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov>; baldwinDA@baldwincountyal.gov <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; "baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov" <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; bob@schreiberadr.com <bob@schreiberadr.com>; jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>; jws@willsellers.com <jws@willsellers.com>; cdobson@maynardnexsen.com <cdobson@maynardnexsen.com>; jwilson@birminghambar.org <jwilson@birminghambar.org>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 at 05:31:43 PM CDT
Subject: Will Alabama TV stations help their viewers understand today's Presidential immunity decision?
To Alabama TV stations:
Please help your viewers understand today's Presidential immunity decision. Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Writing for the ages (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com)
Thank you.

Constitution, Article II, Section 3. "He [President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Concluding paragraph from Faithful Execution and Article II - Harvard Law Review
The original meaning of the Faithful Execution Clauses does not cleanly dispose of many of the most significant and pressing contemporary issues implicated by assertions of presidential authority. But our findings here at least suggest that the President — by original design — is supposed to be like a fiduciary, who must pursue the public interest in good faith republican fashion rather than pursuing his self-interest, and who must diligently and steadily execute Congress’s commands. Now that this original meaning is more clear, the Constitution can be applied more faithfully to the vision of the framers.

Email to authors and responders on "Faithful Execution and Article II"
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: eleib1@law.fordham.edu <eleib1@law.fordham.edu>; JSHUG@BU.EDU <jshug@bu.edu>; akent@law.columbia.edu <akent@law.columbia.edu>; prakash@law.virginia.edu <prakash@law.virginia.edu>; bmeyler@law.stanford.edu <bmeyler@law.stanford.edu>; huq@uchicago.edu <huq@uchicago.edu>
Cc: Brannon Buck <bbuck@badhambuck.com>; Terri B. Lovell <terri.lovell@alabar.org>; mckinney@watsonmckinney.com <mckinney@watsonmckinney.com>; suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org <suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org>; flatta@burr.com <flatta@burr.com>; wbrewbak@law.ua.edu <wbrewbak@law.ua.edu>; sgarrett@bsol.com <sgarrett@bsol.com>; ccampbell@faulkner.edu <ccampbell@faulkner.edu>; blakehudson@samford.edu <blakehudson@samford.edu>; christy.crow@jinkscrow.com <christy.crow@jinkscrow.com>; richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com <richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com>; daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov <daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov>; baldwinDA@baldwincountyal.gov <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; "baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov" <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; bob@schreiberadr.com <bob@schreiberadr.com>; jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>; jws@willsellers.com <jws@willsellers.com>; cdobson@maynardnexsen.com <cdobson@maynardnexsen.com>; jwilson@birminghambar.org <jwilson@birminghambar.org>; Neal K. Katyal <neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com>; [email addresses of personal acquaintances omitted]
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 at 04:14:46 AM CDT
Subject: "Faithful Execution and Article II" and SCOTUS Presidential immunity case
Dear Professors Leib, Shugerman, Kent, Prakash, Meyler, and Huq:
You are the three authors of, and three responders to, the June 2019 Harvard Law Review article "Faithful Execution and Article II" that is at Faithful Execution and Article II - Harvard Law Review.
The concluding paragraph of the article says:
The original meaning of the Faithful Execution Clauses does not cleanly dispose of many of the most significant and pressing contemporary issues implicated by assertions of presidential authority. But our findings here at least suggest that the President — by original design — is supposed to be like a fiduciary, who must pursue the public interest in good faith republican fashion rather than pursuing his self-interest, and who must diligently and steadily execute Congress’s commands. Now that this original meaning is more clear, the Constitution can be applied more faithfully to the vision of the framers.
I would like to think that all six of you disagree with the majority opinion in the SCOTUS Presidential immunity case and that all six of you agree with the dissent.
I would like to think there are scores of constitutional law and other professors who similarly disagree with the majority opinion in the SCOTUS Presidential immunity case and who agree with the dissent.
I hope professors who very strongly disagree with the majority opinion in the SCOTUS Presidential immunity case will join in a letter addressed to President Biden and to the Congress, calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court in order to rectify an extreme error that was made by the majority of the Supreme Court yesterday.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Harvard Law '72
Mountain Brook, AL

Email to Michigan State University constitutional law professors re: Should Elissa Slotkin make SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue?
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: bitensky@law.msu.edu <bitensky@law.msu.edu>; jbronsther@law.msu.edu <jbronsther@law.msu.edu>; chenjame@law.msu.edu <chenjame@law.msu.edu>; linda.sheryl.greene@law.msu.edu <linda.sheryl.greene@law.msu.edu>; kalt@law.msu.edu <kalt@law.msu.edu>; michael.lawrence@law.msu.edu <michael.lawrence@law.msu.edu>; nmorag@law.msu.edu <nmorag@law.msu.edu>; pucillo@law.msu.edu <pucillo@law.msu.edu>; fravitch@law.msu.edu <fravitch@law.msu.edu>; msantamb@law.msu.edu <msantamb@law.msu.edu>
Cc: info@elissaslotkin.org <info@elissaslotkin.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 at 12:18:18 PM CDT
Subject: Should Elissa Slotkin make SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue?
Dear Professors Bitensky, Bronsther, Chen, Greene, Kalt, Lawrence, Morag-Levine, Pucillo, Ravitch, and Sant'Ambrosio:
I am a retired lawyer in Alabama.
I am contacting you who are constitutional law professors at the Michigan State University College of Law.
I think Elissa Slotkin should make the SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue against Mike Rogers, in the form of her calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court.
Below is an email I sent to the three authors of, and three responders to, the June 2019 Harvard Law Review article "Faithful Execution and Article II" that is at Faithful Execution and Article II - Harvard Law Review.
My email urged that professors who very strongly disagree with the majority opinion in the SCOTUS Presidential immunity case join in a letter addressed to President Biden and to the Congress, calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court in order to rectify an extreme error that was made by the majority of the Supreme Court yesterday.
If you think Elissa Slotkin should make the SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue against Mike Rogers, such as in the form of her calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court, please consider you and other constitutional law professors in Michigan writing a joint letter to Elissa Slotkin setting out your argumentation for her doing that.
Thank you for reading this email.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Mountain Brook, AL
[referenced "below" email is above under caption Email to authors and responders on "Faithful Execution and Article II"]
Email to Boston College Professor Richardson re SCOTUS immunity decision and shift in presidential powers
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: heather.richardson@bc.edu <heather.richardson@bc.edu>
Cc: bclawdean@bc.edu <bclawdean@bc.edu>; jdenhart@samford.edu <jdenhart@samford.edu>; hultquic@montevallo.edu <hultquic@montevallo.edu>; jwiesen@uab.edu <jwiesen@uab.edu>; jrothman@ua.edu <jrothman@ua.edu>; wbrewbak@law.ua.edu <wbrewbak@law.ua.edu>; sgarrett@bsol.com <sgarrett@bsol.com>; ccampbell@faulkner.edu <ccampbell@faulkner.edu>; blakehudson@samford.edu <blakehudson@samford.edu>; dmsmolin@samford.edu <dmsmolin@samford.edu>; phorwitz@law.ua.edu <phorwitz@law.ua.edu>; mbrandon@law.ua.edu <mbrandon@law.ua.edu>; aolree@faulkner.edu <aolree@faulkner.edu>; jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 at 04:49:14 AM CDT
Subject: Supreme Court’s immunity decision and shift in presidential powers
Dear Professor Richardson:
This email is prompted by your interview last night on the PBS NewsHour discussing the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and the shift in presidential powers, which interview is at
Historian discusses Supreme Court’s immunity decision and shift in presidential powers | PBS News.
I think Democratic candidates for the United States Senate this year should make SCOTUS a campaign issue, in the form of calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court. I think such should be supported by constitutional law professors writing letters to the candidates urging the candidates to do that.
Yesterday I sent the below email to constitutional law professors at Michigan State University urging them to send a letter to the Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin to such effect.
I hope to do similarly regarding Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate in other states and constitutional law professors in those states.
I am copying this email to Dean Lienau of the Boston College Law School, with a view that perhaps she will think constitutional law professors at the Boston College Law School might be interested in signing a letter to President Biden and the Congress calling for expansion of the Supreme Court.
I am a retired lawyer in Alabama and have been emailing university history departments and law school professors in Alabama concerning Trump and other matters. I am also copying some of those contacts on this email for pushing ahead with them.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Mountain Brook, AL
[referenced "below" email to constitutional law professors at Michigan State University is the email above under the caption Email to Michigan State University constitutional law professors re: Should Elissa Slotkin make SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue? ]
Email to WBRC staff re: WBRC 75th anniversary, the Fourth of July, and "It was good while it lasted"
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: jrogers@wbrc.com <jrogers@wbrc.com>; mdubberly@wbrc.com <mdubberly@wbrc.com>; jehpruitt@hotmail.com <jehpruitt@hotmail.com>; lynden.blake@wbrc.com <lynden.blake@wbrc.com>; destiny.mckeiver@wbrc.com <destiny.mckeiver@wbrc.com>; shaygood@wbrc.com <shaygood@wbrc.com>; chuddleston@wbrc.com <chuddleston@wbrc.com>; rjones@wbrc.com <rjones@wbrc.com>; Jonathan.skinner@wbrc.com <jonathan.skinner@wbrc.com>; kreynolds@wbrc.com <kreynolds@wbrc.com>; sverser@wbrc.com <sverser@wbrc.com>; jonathan.hardison@wbrc.com <jonathan.hardison@wbrc.com>; mhightower@wbrc.com <mhightower@wbrc.com>; jennifer.horton@gray.tv <jennifer.horton@gray.tv>; bryan.henry@wbrc.com <bryan.henry@wbrc.com>; tristan.ruppert@wbrc.com <tristan.ruppert@wbrc.com>; bria.chatman@wbrc.com <bria.chatman@wbrc.com>; gillian.brooks@wbrc.com <gillian.brooks@wbrc.com>; aajene.robinson@wbrc.com <aajene.robinson@wbrc.com>; reggie.kyle@wbrc.com <reggie.kyle@wbrc.com>; jgauntt@wbrc.com <jgauntt@wbrc.com>; bdionne@wbrc.com <bdionne@wbrc.com>; taylor.pollock@wbrc.com <taylor.pollock@wbrc.com>; steve.crocker@wbrc.com <steve.crocker@wbrc.com>; Brady.Talbert@wbrc.com <brady.talbert@wbrc.com>; james.giles@wbrc.com <james.giles@wbrc.com>; lauren.harksen@wbrc.com <lauren.harksen@wbrc.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2024 at 12:29:15 PM CDT
Subject: WBRC 75th anniversary, the Fourth of July, and "It was good while it lasted"
Dear WBRC staff:
In this week of WBRC's 75th Anniversary (wbrc.com), and today's 248th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, may the staff of WBRC reflect on Josh Moon's opinion piece "It was good while it lasted" two days ago in the Alabama Political Reporter.
In Josh's words, "It [the SCOTUS immunity decision] is the sort of decision that historians note as the turning point. The thing that pushed it completely off the rails. The thing that undid it all."
Is Josh engaged in hyperbolic fear mongering?
Does WBRC have a journalistic obligation, to the best of its ability, to evaluate what the Presidential immunity decision means for the United States?
And to tell WBRC's viewers what that evaluation by WBRC is?
Please, please, do the right thing here.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Mountain Brook

Email to other TV stations re email to WBRC staff
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: shannon.isbell@wbrc.com <shannon.isbell@wbrc.com>; Susana Schuler <susana.schuler@hearst.com>; brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com <brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com>; jama.killingsworth@waff.com <jama.killingsworth@waff.com>; Mike Wright <mwright@waaytv.com>; Kay Norred <knorred@wvua23.com>; rmartin@cbs42.com <rmartin@cbs42.com>; Baylor Long <blong@hearst.com>; dwingard@wsfa.com <dwingard@wsfa.com>; news@mynbc15.com <news@mynbc15.com>; randy.merrow@fox10tv.com <randy.merrow@fox10tv.com>; gmcdonald@waka.com <gmcdonald@waka.com>; comments@abc3340.com <comments@abc3340.com>; newstip@abc3340.com <newstip@abc3340.com>; wvtm13@wvtm.com <wvtm13@wvtm.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2024 at 07:45:35 AM CDT
Subject: Fw: WBRC 75th anniversary, the Fourth of July, and "It was good while it lasted"
For what it's worth, below is an email I sent on Thursday to the WBRC staff.
[referenced email I sent on Thursday to the WBRC staff is above]
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)