General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNeal Katyal: "The DOJ brief criticizing the Special Master ruling is a work of art."
NotAcceptingHorsesHat Retweeted(Now admittedly, it was an easy target. But still, just in tone & sophistication &clarity & law)
Motion to Stay #69 in Trump v. United States (S.D. Fla., 9:22-cv-81294) CourtListener.com
MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal by United States Of America. Responses due by 9/22/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Gonzalez, Juan) (Entered: 09/08/2022)
Link to tweet
malaise
(268,638 posts)Lock him up!
gab13by13
(21,234 posts)Why lock him up?
malaise
(268,638 posts)😀😀
ffr
(22,665 posts)the man who helped install her in her position of power over other people's lives.
modrepub
(3,488 posts)from what I've read, she has a very strong anti-government streak. So her ruling, from her point of view, makes sense (to her and other anti-government nuts).
Do you think the Judge and other in-government anti-government types get the irony of their situation? I also wonder if the Judge's anti-government stance applies to all parties involved in government or just the ones that don't begin with the letter "R"? The Federalist Society have some strange birds.
dlk
(11,509 posts)How irrational is that?
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)Let me get this straight you do not support our government but your job is to sit in judgement over American citizens.
WTF
niyad
(113,012 posts)stopdiggin
(11,235 posts)But you ask a good question about whether that actually extends to lefties holding jobs in the government. Or, particularly, on the bench.
Ford_Prefect
(7,867 posts)The Federalist Society has for the last 40 years advocated a radical view of legal and political governance in America. They have culled and selected those most susceptible to a particular form of hierarchy based on the 18th century idea that those with the most gold are entitled to make any rule that suits them, regardless of Constitutional law or previous judicial or congressional interpretation.
The Federalists have groomed countless students, judges, and politicians on all levels towards converting the United States into a white dominated, neo-Christian, Theocracy. Rather as Bin Laden cultivated and steered al-Qaeda towards an ISIS like radical theocracy.
Federalist Society groomed judges and politicians are every bit as dangerous to our democracy as any spy or saboteur and far more effective.
The Judge overseeing this case should be should be removed from further action on it by virtue of conflict of interest, as well as gross legal and judicial incompetence. I do not overstate this. So many qualified legal minds have delivered this view in very plain language that it is impossible to state it more thoroughly.
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)303squadron
(537 posts)Paladin
(28,243 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)Plaintiff does not and could not assert that he owns or has any possessor interest in classified records; that he has any right to have those government records returned to him; or that he can advance any plausible claims of attorney-client privilege as to such records.
How does she not know about US v Nixon, has already litigated executive privilege ?
msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)I just read through this filing with pleasure and ease of understanding the textual meaning and intent of the entire document.
Ease of reading through legal text using every day language, for the most part, was exquisite in itself, the formatting and the logical flow added benefit for this reader.
I loved how exquisitely clear Plaintiff made to the Court, what an effed up thing to do in this proceeding and it had better get it fixed because they will win on appeal if needs must. (my words and interpretation)
reACTIONary
(5,765 posts)Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)If you tried to read it out loud in English to a foreigner, they couldn't understand it.
I'm afraid this exceptional brief will be like Steinbeck in the hands of a second grader from a place where no one speaks English.
Either that, or they'll understand it perfectly well, but they'll throw it in the fire, ban it, and pretend it wasn't persuasive in the least.
Fake news. Fake brief. Fake court.
getagrip_already
(14,603 posts)I think she got the point.
The first was ordering tfg's jesters to repond by monday at noon. The other was some kind of order asking tfg's lawyers specifically about the classified docs.
Why 2 orders and not one complete one? Shock.
Still, it seems she turned on her blinkers and changed lanes for the off ramp the doj gave her.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)Off-topic a bit, but worth asking: if the Trump team responds with another nonsensical brief but the judge rules in their favor by making their arguments for them or simply by ignoring the law or precedent, could she be indicted for obstruction? Seems her parachuting into a matter and walling off the DOJ would fall under this category, but I've never heard it applied to a federal judge (which may answer my question).
getagrip_already
(14,603 posts)Just like a senator or potus is.
That isn't to say they couldn't be brought up on internal misconduct investigations. Or impeached. But not prosecuted.
The DOJ is saying that they will appeal if she chooses not to issue a stay. That is about all they can do at the moment.
msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)I'm fairly inexperienced in most of these legal proceedings. I did have a job assisting strictly in administrative capacity, with simple briefs, and writs. But that isn't quite the same thing.