T1B

I just read the Edwin Meese Amicus Brief to SCOTUS and the briefing of the parties in the case in Florida regarding whether Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel by Garland meets Constitutional requirements, and I think Garland and Smith have some problems, which they created on their own. There is no doubt that Garland has the authority to hire attorneys to assist him or other duly appointed U.S. Attorneys to carry out their duties. And that makes sense because a duly authorized individual is ultimately responsible for whatever occurs. But Garland said Smith is independent of Garland and any other duly appointed U.S. Attorney. I don’t think Garland has the power to hire people to perform the role of U.S. Attorney without the advice and consent of the Senate. If Garland had retained a supervisory role or hired Smith to assist another U.S. Attorney, it would be smooth sailing. But he didn’t. And there is no statutory authority for what he did. Thoughts?

Are you going to let Kierland back ---> IN <--- here to answer your question?

I have no keys, and didn’t ban him. So no.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:01 am I just read the Edwin Meese Amicus Brief to SCOTUS and the briefing of the parties in the case in Florida regarding whether Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel by Garland meets Constitutional requirements, and I think Garland and Smith have some problems, which they created on their own. There is no doubt that Garland has the authority to hire attorneys to assist him or other duly appointed U.S. Attorneys to carry out their duties. And that makes sense because a duly authorized individual is ultimately responsible for whatever occurs. But Garland said Smith is independent of Garland and any other duly appointed U.S. Attorney. I don’t think Garland has the power to hire people to perform the role of U.S. Attorney without the advice and consent of the Senate. If Garland had retained a supervisory role or hired Smith to assist another U.S. Attorney, it would be smooth sailing. But he didn’t. And there is no statutory authority for what he did. Thoughts?

I agree with all of your synopsis. And I'd add that it's not surprising considering how many times this administration has acted WITHOUT authority.
And as you well know, the AG serves at the president's leisure. In this case, due to biden's cognitive decline, the leisure of some leftist within the administration.

The AG is already contemptuous, so I'm not surprised in the least. From everything I've seen so far, this attorney general is the most nakedly partisan and corrupt in history.
I knew it the very moment Obama introduced him as a "moderate" in the Rose Garden.
He's as moderate as Noam Chomsky.

Not familiar enough with the issue. And if I wanted to educate myself on it, I'd want to read all of the briefs, not just one amicus.

I read all the briefs and some articles online. Lawrence Tribe is terrified that the Florida judge is going to dismiss on those grounds after her hearing concludes on Monday.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:45 am I read all the briefs and some articles online. Lawrence Tribe is terrified that the Florida judge is going to dismiss on those grounds after her hearing concludes on Monday.

That's excellent news.
These past eight plus years since the president came down the golden escalator to announce his candidacy, have seen our very government become weaponized against one man.

Police are held accountable by "internal affairs"
But who holds prosecutors accountable?

Obviously, the recent 9-0 UNANIMOUS decision by the Supreme Court which struck down the left-wing extremist Colorado Supreme Court, comes to mind, and rightfully so.

But can prosecutors do whatever the fuck they want, with ZERO accountability?

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:45 am I read all the briefs and some articles online. Lawrence Tribe is terrified that the Florida judge is going to dismiss on those grounds after her hearing concludes on Monday.

If she dismisses it. It will get overturned in the 11th circuit court of appeals Then they'll remove her as the judge due to previous failings on her part in regards to a complete incompetence. She's already been scolded twice. The 11th will remove her or the head honcho judge in her district. Not sure if that's the Magistrate.

Then there will be a competent judge to take her place.


I don't think it'll get dismissed.

It doesn’t work like that. But I’d love to hear how you think it could work that way.

A magistrate is basically an assistant to the judges that handles some duties on behalf of the judges at their discretion.

FiatLux wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:29 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:45 am I read all the briefs and some articles online. Lawrence Tribe is terrified that the Florida judge is going to dismiss on those grounds after her hearing concludes on Monday.

If she dismisses it. It will get overturned in the 11th circuit court of appeals Then they'll remove her as the judge due to previous failings on her part in regards to a complete incompetence. She's already been scolded twice. The 11th will remove her or the head honcho judge in her district. Not sure if that's the Magistrate.

Then there will be a competent judge to take her place.


I don't think it'll get dismissed.

Did you say she'll get removed?


Are you really that stupid?

If the 11th circuit overturns her ruling, then they will get overturned by the Supreme Court.

You actually said "removed "


You're a

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:36 am It doesn’t work like that. But I’d love to hear how you think it could work that way.

A magistrate is basically an assistant to the judges that handles some duties on behalf of the judges at their discretion.

Basically she doesn't want to get overturned on appeal. That's why she's moving so slow in this trial. And she's super slow on making rulings. I don't think she's ever made a ruling from the bench.in this case. She's in over her head

We’ll see. I think your Kool-Aid is being served by ill-informed dopes.

You should get at PACER account and read the documents directly instead of being informed by people who have an agenda and no understanding of the law.

And that is true of both sides. I don’t think Julie Kelly has ever got anything right ever.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:51 am And that is true of both sides. I don’t think Julie Kelly has ever got anything right ever.

Who's Julie Kelly?

Complete moron who feeds stupid shit to right wingers.

https://substack.com/@juliekelly

I think she is the one who turned boilerplate use of force language into a potential assassination attempt of Trump.

Occasional recipes and food pics as bonus

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 4:26 am Complete moron who feeds stupid shit to right wingers.

https://substack.com/@juliekelly

I think she is the one who turned boilerplate use of force language into a potential assassination attempt of Trump.

So she's like Joy Reid, Lawrence O'Donnell, or any number of morons who feed stupid shit to left wingers?

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 4:26 am Complete moron who feeds stupid shit to right wingers.

Maybe not so complete...she has practically been the lone voice for those denied basic legal rights for being present on J-6 and stuck in a DC jail...So props to her.

The Seer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 4:03 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 4:26 am Complete moron who feeds stupid shit to right wingers.

Maybe not so complete...she has practically been the lone voice for those denied basic legal rights for being present on J-6 and stuck in a DC jail...So props to her.

Don’t get sucked into the retard vortex!

I recommend reviewing riot and post riot events, counselor.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/08/an-egregi ... rotesters/

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:01 am I just read the Edwin Meese Amicus Brief to SCOTUS and the briefing of the parties in the case in Florida regarding whether Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel by Garland meets Constitutional requirements, and I think Garland and Smith have some problems, which they created on their own. There is no doubt that Garland has the authority to hire attorneys to assist him or other duly appointed U.S. Attorneys to carry out their duties. And that makes sense because a duly authorized individual is ultimately responsible for whatever occurs. But Garland said Smith is independent of Garland and any other duly appointed U.S. Attorney. I don’t think Garland has the power to hire people to perform the role of U.S. Attorney without the advice and consent of the Senate. If Garland had retained a supervisory role or hired Smith to assist another U.S. Attorney, it would be smooth sailing. But he didn’t. And there is no statutory authority for what he did. Thoughts?

Here is a link to the Order issued in the Florida case today dismissing the indictments:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 72.0_4.pdf

It is well-written. I agree with the Judge's conclusions. There is no authority vested in the Attorney General to just hand over the power exercised by a U.S. Attorney to someone off the street like Jack Smith. Anyone exercising that kind of power must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate.

Biden and his lacky, Garland, had two choices. Biden could have appointed Jack Smith, subject to the approval of Schumer's cadre, to go after Trump in the courts. Or he could have instructed Garland to go after Trump himself, hiring Jack Smith as his subordinate, and exercise full supervisory control over the prosecutions and Smith. Neither Biden nor Garland wanted to do what the law commands because it would have shown their unquestionable political bias. Instead, they tried to skirt the Constitution by having Garland hire/appoint Jack Smith without any statutory authorization and then claim that it was not a political hit job because Smith was independent of them. Weak sauce.

Chutkan will almost certainly deny a similar motion in DC. Then, the question will be whether Cannon's decision will be affirmed or reversed by the 11th Circuit (I'm presuming that the DC Circuit will affirm's Chutkan's ruling based on the composition of the court). If there is a split, you can be certain that the SCOTUS will take up and rule on the issue. If there is no split, it is still a very interesting question. You know how Thomas feels about the issue.

100% correct.

Merrick Garland is in a world of shit.
When he went after parents, referring to them as "domestic terrorists" at PTA meetings, I knew that he was indeed, an extremist.
EVERYTHING he's done since then, the "weapons drawn" raid on president trump's home, etc...etc....etc.....
Has only reinforced his crazy left-wing reputation.

So they don’t got him now?

Python wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 8:36 pm So they don’t got him now?

Life is good.

Here's the $64,000 question....

Was it appropriate for a judge appointed to the federal bench by the defendant to hear a case against the person who appointed her?

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 10:50 pm Here's the $64,000 question....

Was it appropriate for a judge appointed to the federal bench by the defendant to hear a case against the person who appointed her?

Yes, yes, and. YES

Because judge Merchan donated to Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
Two presidents whose justice departments have been weaponized against president trump.

And, several judges appointed by Obama, have presided over cases involving president trump.
The difference between me and you is that I have faith that all these judges will be fair and impartial.

Whereas you are completely paranoid. You see a conspiracy theory in everything, including your own birth.


What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 10:50 pm Here's the $64,000 question....

Was it appropriate for a judge appointed to the federal bench by the defendant to hear a case against the person who appointed her?

Yes. That alone has never been a basis for recusal. You need to show more. And there is no more to show.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wh ... dge-cannon

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 12:06 am Yes. That alone has never been a basis for recusal. You need to show more. And there is no more to show.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wh ... dge-cannon

I'm so old I remember when GQPers used to complain about activist judges.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 12:08 am I'm so old I remember when GQPers used to complain about activist judges.

Activist judges are still a real problem. And Biden just appointed scores of them to the bench. Wait and see what lunacy is coming in the future. And its going to last for a while.

While you were remembering and stuff, did you take the time to read the opinion of the judge you hate because you have been programmed to hate her? Where did she get it wrong?

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 12:14 am

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 12:08 am I'm so old I remember when GQPers used to complain about activist judges.

Activist judges are still a real problem. And Biden just appointed scores of them to the bench. Wait and see what lunacy is coming in the future. And its going to last for a while.

While you were remembering and stuff, did you take the time to read the opinion of the judge you hate because you have been programmed to hate her? Where did she get it wrong?

88
Let me ask you about two things.

First, chief justice Roberts brilliant opinion on the limited presidential immunity, beautifully and succinctly interpreted, I might add.

And Second.

Justice Sotomayor's weird "msnbc" left-wing opinion that left me scratching my head raw.

Sotomayor used the word "king" as if president trump would be "above the law"

This goes directly against Chief justice Roberts brilliant opinion.
And, anyone who has followed the legal careers of both Roberts and Sotomayor, knows full well that Roberts is LIGHT YEARS ABOVE her in every conceivable way shape and form.
She is nowhere near him in terms of intelligence.

Your thoughts?

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 10:50 pm Here's the $64,000 question....

Was it appropriate for a judge appointed to the federal bench by the defendant to hear a case against the person who appointed her?

Yes. It was. Her ruling is/will be judged on its merits. Since you have raised no such dispute, I'm just going to assume you're simply clueless, uninformed and dumb as fuck per usual.

Have a nice day and by nice day I mean die screaming of cancer while having an acid dipped cactus jammed up your ass as your wheel chair is being tipped into a live volcano.

mvscal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 1:59 am Have a nice day and by nice day I mean die screaming of cancer while having an acid dipped cactus jammed up your ass as your wheel chair is being tipped into a live volcano.

There is a visual for you.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 2:18 am

mvscal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 1:59 am Have a nice day and by nice day I mean die screaming of cancer while having an acid dipped cactus jammed up your ass as your wheel chair is being tipped into a live volcano.

There is a visual for you.

Had to add it to my collection of mvscalisms....

Here is a link to Jack Smith's brief in the appeal to the 11th Circuit from the dismissal of the indictment in Florida:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... filing.pdf

It is an interesting read and might be enough to get a reversal. I think it is light on the statutory language and application and heavy on the past history, where the issue was not raised much. The best argument is that SCOTUS, in dicta, found that the statutes gave the AG authority to appoint special counsels. But the SCOTUS did not review or interpret the statutes.

This case seems destined to head to SCOTUS. I guess we'll all learn sometime in a June in the future what the fuck Congress did or did not do.

I understand that there is a court farm system that all cases are supposed to go through, but does SCOTUS have an authority to allow line cutting?

Can they say that a candidate running in an upcoming election deserves the right to have his day in court BEFORE the election?

Doing this could fend off future political witch hunts. If those conducting such witch hunts knew that they'd be settled before the election, they'd think twice. In the existing system, they understand that the cases will be stuck in the system on election day and they can bleat on about the indicted candidate or better yet the "convicted felon" even though they know damn well, he'll be unconvicted after the election.

Oh and MVScal, I'd skip the volcano plunge. It would end his misery too soon.

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 12:25 pm I understand that there is a court farm system that all cases are supposed to go through, but does SCOTUS have an authority to allow line cutting?

Not really. The SCOTUS can grant extraordinary writs in some circumstances. But it rarely does. The court system is supposed to just grind along without being mired in politics. That is why use of the courts for political purposes is dangerous. The system is not built for that purpose, and using it in that manner erodes public confidence in the institution. Political disagreements are supposed to be settled in the legislature, not the courts.

It seems a common misunderstanding about SCOTUS is that you don't have a right to be there. Before they consider the merits of your case, you have to apply to them first (known as a writ of certiorari).

In this application, if all you're saying is that the lower made a mistake, SCOTUS is unlikely to take the case. It is not a mere extra layer of appeal. However, if you point out that appellate courts all over the country have considered this legal issue and have reached different conclusions, that is an example of when SCOTUS probably will grant the writ so as to provide guidance and consistency throughout the country.

To 88's point, if SCOTUS views the case as political, that is a reason why it would deny the writ.

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 12:25 pm I understand that there is a court farm system that all cases are supposed to go through, but does SCOTUS have an authority to allow line cutting?

Can they say that a candidate running in an upcoming election deserves the right to have his day in court BEFORE the election?

Doing this could fend off future political witch hunts. If those conducting such witch hunts knew that they'd be settled before the election, they'd think twice. In the existing system, they understand that the cases will be stuck in the system on election day and they can bleat on about the indicted candidate or better yet the "convicted felon" even though they know damn well, he'll be unconvicted after the election.

Oh and MVScal, I'd skip the volcano plunge. It would end his misery too soon.

Just why do you think that Dump has tried to delay every trial at every chance he gets?

Why do you think that Dump appointee Cannon has slow-walked the case she is hearing?

An innocent person would be chomping at the bit to clear their name....

You’d make a great judge, Diego. You are clearly a deep thinker. You have an unmatched understanding of the Constitution, the law in general and no apparent bias whatsoever. Fuck, you should replace the wise Latina or Kagan when the mob comes for them on Wednesday, November 6, 2024.

https://www.vox.com/scotus/354381/supre ... retire-now

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 3:06 am You’d make a great judge, Diego. You are clearly a deep thinker. You have an unmatched understanding of the Constitution, the law in general and no apparent bias whatsoever.

I have formed the same high esteem of Diego but I am more impressed with his knowledge of economics and how feelings and knee jerk reactions can drive solid economic policy.

His mastery of trickle-down economics (a real thing invented by Nazi Socialist libertarians) would land his portrait in the hall of fame of Austrian economists, he is that well tuned.

Here is one of the law school educational films the likes of 88, Roux and Terry In Crapchester were probably taught with.

It is a classic treatment of courtroom techniques. You can even see the influence of this pedagogical gem in the postings of the T1B Law Firm.


The content should be considered NSFW.