Honestly, the most well-argued points of law seem these days in great jeopardy whenever SCOTUS is asked to rule on them. I mean, is everybody absolutely sure that five Justices won't support the Aileen Cannon ruling on "unconstitutionality" of Jack Smith's appointment, and dismissal of the docs thieving case? And how confident - no matte…
Honestly, the most well-argued points of law seem these days in great jeopardy whenever SCOTUS is asked to rule on them. I mean, is everybody absolutely sure that five Justices won't support the Aileen Cannon ruling on "unconstitutionality" of Jack Smith's appointment, and dismissal of the docs thieving case? And how confident - no matter how air-tight - are we that DC Bragg's response to tRump's "immunity" claims vis-à-vis his 34-count conviction will hold up?
"Rule of Law " is taking a real beating when it concerns tRump and tRump alone, and I for one hold my breath when appeals finally reach SCOTUS and what the far-right judges say during the hearings.
To try to apply consistency and logic to SCOTUS decisions is a mug's game, and we're in uncharted territory here...hope for the best but expect the worst, no more and no less.
The stark contrast to what Chief Justice Roberts wrote this year on the subject of Presidential Immunity to what he wrote in '20 during the investigative stage of this NY case, is what I hope Judge Merchan points to as being 'the ruling of the Court at the time of these proceedings.'
See Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 (July 9, 2020) (recognizing that the “public has a right to every man’s evidence” ).
Honestly, the most well-argued points of law seem these days in great jeopardy whenever SCOTUS is asked to rule on them. I mean, is everybody absolutely sure that five Justices won't support the Aileen Cannon ruling on "unconstitutionality" of Jack Smith's appointment, and dismissal of the docs thieving case? And how confident - no matter how air-tight - are we that DC Bragg's response to tRump's "immunity" claims vis-à-vis his 34-count conviction will hold up?
"Rule of Law " is taking a real beating when it concerns tRump and tRump alone, and I for one hold my breath when appeals finally reach SCOTUS and what the far-right judges say during the hearings.
To try to apply consistency and logic to SCOTUS decisions is a mug's game, and we're in uncharted territory here...hope for the best but expect the worst, no more and no less.
The stark contrast to what Chief Justice Roberts wrote this year on the subject of Presidential Immunity to what he wrote in '20 during the investigative stage of this NY case, is what I hope Judge Merchan points to as being 'the ruling of the Court at the time of these proceedings.'
See Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 (July 9, 2020) (recognizing that the “public has a right to every man’s evidence” ).
"Everybody is absolutely sure". How does one go about quoting "everybody"?
Figure of speech, mate, just a figure of speech.
Even the kooky old fellow down the block has a soap box upon which to wax eloquent regarding “points of law”.
Lol
What a great country, eh?