re: Judge Cannon Hands Trump His Second Major Win in 24 Hours

It’s a hypothetical you prick. Answer the question.

quote:

---

Why would they upset/overrule 50 year-old precedent?

---

Their prerogative if they believe it's wrongly decided. If you are going to give a special counsel more power than a US Attorney to prosecute US citizens and you require nomination and confirmation for a US Attorney, then might make sense to require nomination and confirmation for a special counsel as well.

The Appointments Clause of course doesn't specifically define all types of principal versus inferior officers and certainly doesn't state that special counsel standing in the shoes of a principal officer like a US Attorney should be an inferior officer. Without specific statutory authority, the question of whether the Appointments Clause gives the AG the authority to designate special counsel as an inferior officer when that inferior officer is given the broad powers of a principal officer is one that is ripe for a new USSC trending more originalist to take up. Justice Thomas all but asked them to raise it in the Florida case in the immunity oral argument.

Exactly. He knows the answer is no but his evasive bullshite answer confirms what everyone here sees, partisanship masquerading as something else.

quote:

---

Well this has transformed into one epic mini-melt

---

Why not move to a country where they are able to tolerate you? You could actually make a name for yourself over seas. All you need to do is keep lying.

Imagine a lawyer that would actually skirt around the truth and actually lie.

You fit the bill.

quote:

---

No idea. I can't predict the future in the past of an alternate reality.

---

dam son gif

He's practicing his lawyerin'. "Your honor, I'm so factual, I'm simply unable to opine on hypotheticals."

quote:

---

He's practicing his lawyerin

---

Correct

He is perfectly willing to answer hundreds of questions across countless threads about this topic - as long as they can be answered in a way that will allow him to perpetuate his facade.


Any questions that call him out and would force him to admit the farce that this whole Trump trial is, he is unwilling to answer. Too many qualifiers. How can I answer a question about the future based on a nonsensical premise about the past?

Law school 101.


But he’s probably answered 1000 hypotheticals about sports on multiple boards over the years and he enjoys the debate.

Zero credibility

quote:

---

SPF, please take a break! You respond to any and every law thread with your obviously wrong opinions,

---

I literally posted case law to back me up, brother.

How is this not judicial prudence? IMHO, issues are raised, she is hearing the issues. That’s EXACTLY her job! If only more judges would have taken this approach, ya know, open minded, land with solid facts, and most importantly, a plaintiff is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

There has to be a more robust system to impeach judges from all levels. Congress needs to pass laws to allow the USSC more authority to discipline and remove activists judges! As the progressives would say, it’s a thread to our “democracy” constitutional republic!

quote:

---

I can't imagine much worse than legal eagle crap with a poker war story to boot.

---

Why?

Math and strategy is math and strategy.