• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
civilwarbuff

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟756,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Belk said:
SCOTUS already ruled on this case as referenced. There is no need to wait. It was decided years ago. That is why no one objected to the counsels that investigated Clinton, and Hunter Biden, and Robert Mueller, and Joe Biden. If this one is illegal then they all were.
Click to expand...
Again, we will find out in the ruling. Laws change, as does society's view of things, which could change circumstances that would invalidate a previous ruling. Not like scotus has never overturned one of their rulings before. If that were not true we might still be living under 'separate but equal'.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
essentialsaltes

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,775
45,884
Los Angeles Area
✟1,019,378.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: KCfromNC, Goonie and Belk
Upvote 0
civilwarbuff

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟756,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Belk said:
That is why no one objected to the counsels that investigated Clinton, and Hunter Biden, and Robert Mueller, and Joe Biden. If this one is illegal then they all were.
Click to expand...
There is truth in your statement depending on his specific circumstances.
 
Upvote 0
A

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,108
8,353
✟414,087.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
civilwarbuff said:
Again, we will find out in the ruling. Laws change, as does society's view of things, which could change circumstances that would invalidate a previous ruling. Not like scotus has never overturned one of their rulings before. If that were not true we might still be living under 'separate but equal'.
Click to expand...
But this isn't a case of SCOTUS deciding one of its precedents was wrongly decided or is out of date. This is a federal trial court judge deciding that she didn't want to follow the existing law, giving a toilet paper-thin rationale of why it shouldn't apply, and then using some extremely strained legal reasoning to do what she wanted to do anyway.
Belk said:
SCOTUS already ruled on this case as referenced. There is no need to wait. It was decided years ago. That is why no one objected to the counsels that investigated Clinton, and Hunter Biden, and Robert Mueller, and Joe Biden. If this one is illegal then they all were.
Click to expand...
People did object to Robert Mueller being appointed. In fact that was one of the precedents Cannon ignored because it was in a different circuit (though she is of course willing to rely on out-of-circuit authorities when it benefits her). As for the two Biden SCs, the theory is that they are different because they had previously been Senate-appointed. But Cannon actually didn't touch the question of whether Smith was a principal officer who needed to be Senate confirmed. Instead, she just said that the position he had filled wasn't created by COngress, which does appoint to all Special Counsels.
 
Upvote 0
civilwarbuff

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟756,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Arcangl86 said:
But this isn't a case of SCOTUS deciding one of its precedents was wrongly decided or is out of date.
Click to expand...
Ate you sure? Did you search?
Arcangl86 said:
This is a federal trial court judge deciding that she didn't want to follow the existing law, giving a toilet paper-thin rationale of why it shouldn't apply, and then using some extremely strained legal reasoning to do what she wanted to do anyway.
Click to expand...
Your opinion.....even if it is 'toilet paper thin'....
 
Upvote 0
A

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,108
8,353
✟414,087.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
civilwarbuff said:
Ate you sure? Did you search?
Click to expand...
If there was a Supreme Court case overturning Nixon, it would have been cited by her. Instead she had to find some other justification to ignore it.
civilwarbuff said:
Your opinion.....even if it is 'toilet paper thin'....
Click to expand...
Well yes, of course, it's just my opinion. BUt It's backed by my reading of her judgement, which had a lot of issues, starting with her decision that NIxon doesn't apply because it's dicta but then allowing dicta from Thomas to influence her decision.
 
Upvote 0
Pommer

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,761
14,053
Earth
✟247,454.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Arcangl86 said:
If there was a Supreme Court case overturning Nixon, it would have been cited by her. Instead she had to find some other justification to ignore it.
Click to expand...
The Special Prosecutor in the Nixon cas was Archibald Cox, who was approved by the Senate so that “issue” wasn’t addressed. Rather the case involved whether Nixon could shield underlings from prosecution via “executive privilege”, (no).
Arcangl86 said:
Well yes, of course, it's just my opinion. BUt It's backed by my reading of her judgement, which had a lot of issues, starting with her decision that NIxon doesn't apply because it's dicta but then allowing dicta from Thomas to influence her decision.
Click to expand...
If Jack Smith is decided to be an “inferior officer”, Trump loses.
 
Upvote 0
A

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,108
8,353
✟414,087.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Pommer said:
The Special Prosecutor in the Nixon cas was Archibald Cox, who was approved by the Senate so that “issue” wasn’t addressed. Rather the case involved whether Nixon could shield underlings from prosecution via “executive privilege”, (no).
Click to expand...
Actually the Special Prosecutor was Leon Jaworski because this was after the Saturday Night Massacre. And both Jaworski and Cox before him were both appointed by the respective AGs under regulations that had been made pursuant to several different statutes. It wasn't a congressionally created position and it wasn't an advice and consent position. And while you are correct that the hinge of the case was executive privilege, the propriety of Jaworski's appointment was a threshold issue. If he wasn't properly appointed, then the subpoena was automatically invalid and thus they wouldn't need to approach the executive privilege matter at all.
If Jack Smith is decided to be an “inferior officer”, Trump loses.
Click to expand...
Not true. If you look at Cannon's judgment, the whole thing is written with the presumption that Jack Smith is indeed an "inferior officer." She concludes he was improperly appointed not because he wasn't confirmed by the Senate, but because in her view no statute existed to create his office. A secondary issue was related in that she also felt that no approriations were made to pay for the work of his office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: essentialsaltes and Pommer
Upvote 0
rambot

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,337
15,979
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟450,121.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Theoretically, and I'm not all that great on legal stuff, but essentially, wouldn't ANYONE being tried for a felony be able to fall under this ruling then as well? Could we have 3yrs of felonies expunged due to this? (theoretically).
 
Upvote 0
Goonie

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,439
10,024
48
UK
✟1,340,221.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
rambot said:
Theoretically, and I'm not all that great on legal stuff, but essentially, wouldn't ANYONE being tried for a felony be able to fall under this ruling then as well? Could we have 3yrs of felonies expunged due to this? (theoretically).
Click to expand...
so the Special Prosecutor who went after Hunter Biden according to this ruling was illegal and unconstitutional.
 
Upvote 0

Similar threads

Oompa Loompa
WE ARE AT WAR! Trump approves military action against Latin American cartels classified as terrorist organizations.
Replies
12
Views
518
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Pommer
Pommer
wing2000
Trump Fires Federal Prosecutor Who Worked on the Epstein Case
Replies
9
Views
639
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN
CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN
FreeinChrist
Ghislaine Maxwell’s move to ‘country club’ prison smacks of special treatment, experts say
Replies
102
Views
3K
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Hans Blaster
Hans Blaster
essentialsaltes
DOJ issues subpoenas to NY AG Letitia James, including over Trump civil fraud case and NRA case: Sources
Replies
35
Views
1K
American Politics
Belk
Belk
The Barbarian
Judge tosses out Trump's suit against Woodward
Replies
4
Views
391
Current News & Events (Articles Required)
The Barbarian
The Barbarian
Top Bottom
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply