Quick review, with holiday season briefing, set for a law the federal government says is needed for national security but that critics say runs roughshod over speech rights.
They also earlier slow-walked cases involving Trump's financial records even after the House of Representatives, part of a co-equal branch, asked for accelerated action. They didn't speed along emoluments cases, resulting in Trump being able -- basically, as he did in the immunity case -- run out the clock. They aided and abetted Donald Trump.
Excellent article today, Chris, I really appreciate your writing because you have a gift of explaining complicated topics, in a way that even I can understand.Thank You and will reStack ASAP 🙏💯👍
White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater “said Ginsburg’s faith was discussed in the context that “it is a fact that he is the first Jewish nominee, I guess, since Abe Fortas, but beyond that . . . I wouldn’t try to attach any special tactical advantage to it.”” Oct 30, 1987, LATimes.
I foresee a fascinating struggle ahead between Donald Trump, once and future king, and John Roberts: Trump believes himself invincible, given near absolute immunity; Roberts sees himself as Master Puppeteer. (Neil Gorsuch lurks shadows, licking his chops, waiting for Roberts to fall and the Chief Justice position is suddenly open.
The slow walking of the Trump cases is a great point. But how do folks here feel about how the Court might rule? Honestly, even if it is for blatantly the wrong reasons, I hope they uphold this ban. Social media in general has had an overwhelmingly negative effect on people’s political views with echo chambers and mental health, especially for youth. There was a great NPR article uncovering some of the redacted sections of a separate lawsuit against TikTok by some state attorneys general that showed TikTok has internal research showing all of this, and yet they just do not care. They’ll happily treat their own consumers like shit so long as it makes them more money - and it seems like their own consumers want to defend them. Should they be singled out for this, as if they’re the only social media company to do this? Absolutely not. But they’re by far the biggest fish on the market - wiping them out would be a step in the right direction. But happy to see another view on this
They also earlier slow-walked cases involving Trump's financial records even after the House of Representatives, part of a co-equal branch, asked for accelerated action. They didn't speed along emoluments cases, resulting in Trump being able -- basically, as he did in the immunity case -- run out the clock. They aided and abetted Donald Trump.
Your last point is resonant: this writ took almost no time whereas Jack Smith’s application for a writ simply sat there until it was really too late.
“… damning indictment …” as if SCOTUS - or actually its conservative supermajority - cares about law enforcement’s or precedence or ethics …
Excellent article today, Chris, I really appreciate your writing because you have a gift of explaining complicated topics, in a way that even I can understand.Thank You and will reStack ASAP 🙏💯👍
Yes, yes, yes! Slow walking of the immunity case. Not sure how those folks sleep at night.
Thank you Chris. Merry
Christmas to you and those
you love and hold dear. Merry
Christmas to all who follow
Law Dork.🎄
White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater “said Ginsburg’s faith was discussed in the context that “it is a fact that he is the first Jewish nominee, I guess, since Abe Fortas, but beyond that . . . I wouldn’t try to attach any special tactical advantage to it.”” Oct 30, 1987, LATimes.
I foresee a fascinating struggle ahead between Donald Trump, once and future king, and John Roberts: Trump believes himself invincible, given near absolute immunity; Roberts sees himself as Master Puppeteer. (Neil Gorsuch lurks shadows, licking his chops, waiting for Roberts to fall and the Chief Justice position is suddenly open.
The slow walking of the Trump cases is a great point. But how do folks here feel about how the Court might rule? Honestly, even if it is for blatantly the wrong reasons, I hope they uphold this ban. Social media in general has had an overwhelmingly negative effect on people’s political views with echo chambers and mental health, especially for youth. There was a great NPR article uncovering some of the redacted sections of a separate lawsuit against TikTok by some state attorneys general that showed TikTok has internal research showing all of this, and yet they just do not care. They’ll happily treat their own consumers like shit so long as it makes them more money - and it seems like their own consumers want to defend them. Should they be singled out for this, as if they’re the only social media company to do this? Absolutely not. But they’re by far the biggest fish on the market - wiping them out would be a step in the right direction. But happy to see another view on this