Quinta Jurecic, Benjamin Wittes: To succeed in getting the Jan. 6 indictment against Donald Trump dismissed, Trump's legal team will have to pull off a remarkable feat: convincing five justices of the Supreme Court to recognize a maximalist version of a hitherto unknown immunity doctrine and then construe the alleged facts in the indictment at a sufficient level of abstraction as to qualify for immunity under that vision. And that seems unlikely. read more
Anna Bower, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Benjamin Wittes: The issue is complicated, but removal of the Fulton County case to federal court would not be a disaster -- and is probably the right answer. read more
Simple solution, don't give information you want kept private to third parties. en.wikipedia.org
Interesting that a self-proclaimed "leading and trusted global online enterprise technology news publication" doesn't provide such fundamental background information.
Pretty much sums it up right there, pal.
Were it so simple. From the court's opinion:
311. On the other hand, Intervenors argue that five constitutional provisions show that the President is not an "officer of the United States."There follows the five provisions and her conclusions which is too long to copy and paste.
You can find the pertinent excerpts and a link to the opinion here. reason.com
#27 It's his job to carry out the law, which he failed to do. He didn't carry out anything. In fact, he did the opposite of carrying out the law.
The "political question doctrine" is part of the law. Here's a deep dive into that doctrine applied to this case. "Political questions and Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment" electionlawblog.org
#28 Sooooo...basically, the judiciary, when it comes to protecting our democratic institutions ...
Separation of powers, where the political question doctrine is grounded, is a democratic institution.
That said, somewhere, some how this issue will be decided by someone. "Lawfare" counts 31 pending court cases involving the issue. www.lawfaremedia.org We don't know how many may be pending before elections officials.
1 & 2
It's advisable to read before commenting, "The decision by the Michigan Court of Claims did not squarely address or focus on the lawsuit's allegations that Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" ...".
More accurately, the court did not rule on the merits because it found the case involves a "political question."
The questions involved are by their nature political. The number of cases presents the risk of completely opposite and potentially confusing opinions and outcomes, which will certainly "expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos." Moreover, there is no "limited and precise rationale" to guide this Court and the others that is also "clear, manageable, and politically neutral." Because the cases involve the office of the President, such confusion and lack of finality will be more pronounced. See Nixon, 506 US at 236.electionlawblog.org
Try shouting FIRE in a crowded theater ...
You make a common mistake, it's "try falsly shouting fire in crowded theater." If it's true it's a public service.
Restraining a criminal defendant's rights pretrial is not new, unusual or an attack on the Buffoon. The question is how far the court can go. The Buffoon's hyper-rhetoric needs to be retrained but the Buffoon also has the right to say whatever stupid s**t he wants. No different than anyone else. I don't envy the position of any judge deciding that.