re: What does Garland and Smith do once Judge Cannon rules Smith wasn't legally appointed?

quote:

---

As we've all seen before, eventually one of these justices go rogue because they never want you to think you know how they'll rule.

---

You understand that a Justice isn't "going rogue" every time they disagree with your preferred outcome, right?

quote:

---

Based on what? A concurrence nobody else signed off on? The USSC ruling could easily be 8-1 with Thomas as the lone dissenter

---

Based on their recent rulings to challenge previous precedent. And yes, they could rule any number of ways, I just believe the court is showing signs of heading in a direction to reign in government. This falls right into that category.

quote:

---

Every case that has analyzed this appointment process has validated it.

---

Link???

Could the 11th circuit come to a different conclusion from the DC circuit?

quote:

---

Take their ball and go home

---

question is does what Thomas said in deciding immunity affect Cannon at all? I'd guess yes. Any justice opines, you take it into account especially when it is in concurrence.

Because to those (like me) who are playing catch up- SCOTUS did not directly speak to Smith's appointment or that of violations of the appointments clause. Thomas put a pretty direct comment in the immunity ruling.

So assuming Cannon tells DOJ to refile with a Fed prosecutor of standing, and rules Jack Smith's entire evidentiary collection is not admissible and he does not have standing to convene a grand jury promptly dismissing the case without prejudice (allowing them to convene a grand jury w/a authorized prosecutor), Smith and the DOJ will appeal up the ladder until it reaches SCOTUS where they can directly rule on it.

Either way, at worst- looking at a 2025 trial date, if they are lucky, in either case with a new prosecutor/grand jury OR appealed up to keep Jackie on the case (which out of pride & notoriety he will want to do).

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. The question is before Judge cannon currently, she has postponed her ruling until after some of the cases before the USSC ruled so she can have a guideline for an unprecedented situation. With the rulings, and specifically Judge Thomas adding that, it’s pretty clear what her next move will be.

Not only will her decision dismiss the charges against president Trump, but all J-6 defendants charged under the special council, which is unconstitutional!

I understand, the questions of Jack Smith ( or any special prosecutor for the matter) is currently being argued under merits, in her court. It’s my opinion as to how she will rule, JusticeThomas threw her a bone ( in this ruling) to help her make a very difficult decision, it’s unprecedented before the court. And I don’t think I am commingling two issues, as they are one and the same.

Are you feeling like I am including Presidential immunity into the J-6 defendants? If so, that’s my fault, I was talking about several USSC verdicts in the past two weeks that are building a frame work for her to rule. For example, they ruled that the statute Smith is prosecuting the defendants under is wrong, the have ruled a jury should be unanimous for each charge before any court, chevron plays into this for an executive overstepping their boundaries; the only reason I made mention of the immunity ruling was because of the comments Thomas made that are specific to this case. Ta’da.

I deal with litigation for a living.

Trump should sue Garland for breaking the law and violating his constitutional rights.