Trump fined nearly $1M for ‘revenge’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

[Pommer]

The guys like the old Timex watch commercials. He takes a beatin' but keeps on tickin'.

Any word on him “payin’”?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And, unless I missed something, all the ones aimed at gun manufacturers have been struck down by the courts.

Part of the issue could be the conservative leaning of the supreme court, but another distinction could be with the way to two legal challenges were structured.

Supreme Court thwarts bid to block SB8 on 'dark day' for Texas abortion rights

The Supreme Court acted on abortion providers' challenge to stay enforcement of Texas' controversial abortion ban after six weeks of pregnancy.

abcnews.go.com

By a vote of 8-1, the court allowed the abortion providers to sue four Texas health licensing officials who would be involved with enforcement of SB8. But by 5-4, the justices rejected the providers' request to allow a suit to target state court judges and clerks, or the Texas attorney general, in an attempt to shut down the legal machinery underpinning SB8.


Gorsuch's opinion leans heavily on a 1908 Supreme Court decision, Ex parte Young, which said that state officials can be sued in federal court to prevent them from enforcing unconstitutional laws but that an injunction cannot be issued against a state court system.

Judge strikes down California gun law modeled on Texas abortion measure

The ruling could put the law on a trajectory to the Supreme Court.

www.politico.com

The injunction from Judge Roger Benitez sets California’s law, which enables private citizens to sue manufacturers of illegal guns, on a potential path to the U.S. Supreme Court. That could set up a test of both laws — an outcome that California Gov. Gavin Newsom has sought.

While Benitez’s ruling argues that California’s law “goes even further” than its Texas impetus, he acknowledged that may not be enough to shield the Texas measure from “judicial scrutiny.”

 

[SimplyMe]

Part of the issue could be the conservative leaning of the supreme court, but another distinction could be with the way to two legal challenges were structured.

Supreme Court thwarts bid to block SB8 on 'dark day' for Texas abortion rights

The Supreme Court acted on abortion providers' challenge to stay enforcement of Texas' controversial abortion ban after six weeks of pregnancy.

abcnews.go.com

By a vote of 8-1, the court allowed the abortion providers to sue four Texas health licensing officials who would be involved with enforcement of SB8. But by 5-4, the justices rejected the providers' request to allow a suit to target state court judges and clerks, or the Texas attorney general, in an attempt to shut down the legal machinery underpinning SB8.


Gorsuch's opinion leans heavily on a 1908 Supreme Court decision, Ex parte Young, which said that state officials can be sued in federal court to prevent them from enforcing unconstitutional laws but that an injunction cannot be issued against a state court system.

Judge strikes down California gun law modeled on Texas abortion measure

The ruling could put the law on a trajectory to the Supreme Court.

www.politico.com

The injunction from Judge Roger Benitez sets California’s law, which enables private citizens to sue manufacturers of illegal guns, on a potential path to the U.S. Supreme Court. That could set up a test of both laws — an outcome that California Gov. Gavin Newsom has sought.

While Benitez’s ruling argues that California’s law “goes even further” than its Texas impetus, he acknowledged that may not be enough to shield the Texas measure from “judicial scrutiny.”

There were a few "legal structures" to challenge the Texas law, the issue is almost all of them were tossed for either standing or suing the wrong people. The courts liberally used the idea that since it wasn't the "state" that is applying or enforcing this law, rather "individual citizens," they basically tossed out almost all the appeals due to lack of standing or suing the wrong persons.

To give an example, this lawsuit was denied, mentioning others that were in process or had already failed and noted, "Attorneys for the state have argued that the state and state officials cannot be sued as a means of blocking the law, because they are not responsible for enforcing the ban." Basically the courts went along with the idea that, although the state had passed the law, the state could not be sued since it wasn't the one enforcing the law -- which made it basically unable to successfully challenge.

 

[Pommer]

Basically the courts went along with the idea that, although the state had passed the law, the state could not be sued since it wasn't the one enforcing the law -- which made it basically unable to successfully challenge.

How then is a law that is not petitionable (redress of grievances) to survive?
If it cannot be challenged the citizenry has no choice but to vote out those who made such a law and should that eventuality come to pass their party won’t be back in power anytime soon.

 

[Whyayeman]

How then is a law that is not petitionable (redress of grievances) to survive?
If it cannot be challenged the citizenry has no choice but to vote out those who made such a law and should that eventuality come to pass their party won’t be back in power anytime soon.

From this side of the ocean this looks like an abuse of power.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Nomination alone isnt a relationship.

"This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial. " as I said upthread. There is more than just nomination here.

 

[durangodawood]

"This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial. " as I said upthread. There is more than just nomination here.

If theres not a relationship with the nominator, then how is there a relationship with the nominators wife?

 

[Arcangl86]

"This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial. " as I said upthread. There is more than just nomination here.

I'm confused why he's not impartial in your view? He has no relationship with Hilary and the only relationship he has with Bill was being nominated to the bench by him almost 30 years ago. He's likely only even met him once. So I'm confused why you think there is an impartiality issue here.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If theres not a relationship with the nominator, then how is there a relationship with the nominators wife?

Did you miss the word "Defendant"? Appearance of impropriety is enough to recuse.

 

[durangodawood]

Did you miss the word "Defendant"? Appearance of impropriety is enough to recuse.

So youd have wanted Justice Thomas to recuse from Bush v Gore because he was nominated by the father of one of the parties, right?

Hmm. If only we could time travel and make that happen! 4-4 tie. Recount continues. Gore becomes president. No Iraq War II. I'll take that deal!

 

[SimplyMe]

"This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial. " as I said upthread. There is more than just nomination here.

And I'm confused why you never replied to my post -- so no judge nominated by Trump should hear any of the current Trump cases -- particularly the Documents case in Florida (where the judge was not only appointed by Trump but also made a bad ruling in Trump's favor in a previous case)? Odd how you keep harping on the Clintons but completely ignore the cases where Trump is the defendant.

 

[Pommer]

And I'm confused why you never replied to my post -- so no judge nominated by Trump should hear any of the current Trump cases -- particularly the Documents case in Florida (where the judge was not only appointed by Trump but also made a bad ruling in Trump's favor in a previous case)? Odd how you keep harping on the Clintons but completely ignore the cases where Trump is the defendant.

Cue the “humina-defense”.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

And I'm confused why you never replied to my post -- so no judge nominated by Trump should hear any of the current Trump cases -- particularly the Documents case in Florida (where the judge was not only appointed by Trump but also made a bad ruling in Trump's favor in a previous case)? Odd how you keep harping on the Clintons but completely ignore the cases where Trump is the defendant.

I keep mentioning Clinton because of the vastly disparate treatment and the hypocrisy. Had both been treated alike and charged, then I would wait for outcomes.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

He is making revenge a campaign promise. So sad.

 

[NxNW]

Did you miss the word "Defendant"? Appearance of impropriety is enough to recuse.

Apparently you haven't been reading the recent headlines regarding SCOTUS.

 

[NxNW]

I keep mentioning Clinton because of the vastly disparate treatment and the hypocrisy.

Such as . . . ?

 

[Pommer]

"This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial. " as I said upthread. There is more than just nomination here.

Are we to assume that the judges in our courts feel “beholden” to the Presidents who have nominated them and will taint their rulings should any case that is in in way related to those Presidents’ friends and family, or law practice, or golfing Buddy.

 

[Whyayeman]

Are we to assume that the judges in our courts feel “beholden” to the Presidents who have nominated them and will taint their rulings should any case that is in in way related to those Presidents’ friends and family, or law practice, or golfing Buddy.

This assumption of being beholden underlies much of what has been said about the judges in the many cases involving Trump (and to an extent the thousand defendants in the January 6th trials).

It insults the judges and our intelligence.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Apparently you haven't been reading the recent headlines regarding SCOTUS.

Nonresponsive.

 

[SimplyMe]

I keep mentioning Clinton because of the vastly disparate treatment and the hypocrisy. Had both been treated alike and charged, then I would wait for outcomes.

What different treatment? The only thing I could think of Bill Clinton actually being charged with is perjury, where he settled the case by giving up his law license -- and it is a crime that is rarely charged, and likely, in this case, could not have been successfully prosecuted (a case where they argue what "is" could possibly be meant by a person testifying).

With Hillary, she went through how many (7?) Congressional investigations, even testifying for most of a day, and was also investigated by the FBI -- with the FBI likely "tanking" her chance of winning when they announced she was being investigated (her poll numbers dropped roughly five points that weekend and never recovered, with the FBI announcement the only major thing that seems like it would have caused the drop). Yes, they ultimately determined that she could not be successfully prosecuted (much like Trump wouldn't have been if he would have returned the documents when asked, rather than hide them), but despite for Trump continuing to push for her to be indicted (and the calls for "lock her up" in rallies), Trump's AGs also appeared to believe that any prosecution would not be successful (and merely rile up Democrats, like Trump's indictment has Republicans). The difference being, the Federal and Georgia indictments against Trump appear to have solid evidence and strong chances of conviction.