This “rare” case. Uh huh. Because it’s Dump. And because we have all heard the tapes. And because he’s as guilty as sin. And because several grand jurors have said of the evidence that they heard, it’s way way worse than any of us know. So the “rare” case is because the judges have to put the final nail in the coffin of this case. Travesty.
So the term "the rare case" was basically invented here so that they could look past legal precedents and rule based on their own prejudicial leanings? No wonder the public no longer trust the judicial system. It isn't only SCOTUS that is unaccountable for its actions, state courts, also.
As the aging son of a lawyer, I love reading reasonable and precise examinations like this. Thanks, Harry. Too much "interpretation" and too many "rare" cases recently. The law is pretty precise. These judges do us a disservice by letting their prejudices inform their decisions.
I don’t see the big deal that she dated someone on her team, regular people do it all the time, it’s not like she was dating the enemy, seems like they just wanted to create conspiracy…Courts should stay out of peoples personal lives
I always thought that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade should have gotten engaged when this all (horses&*%) started up and made a big announcement about their upcoming nuptials. What would’ve happened then? Who knows, but it would’ve been an interesting “plot twist” for Trump et al. to wrangle with.
In the 21st Century, it seems, courts no longer are bound by precedent or a lower court’s findings of fact and law—this is not just a Trump thing, but a Roberts thing starting with Citizens United (2010). It does not bode well for the country … but very well for the right wing and its richest stars (including a Justice or two).
Harry, you make it easy to understand law and judgements, this is a really great skill.
However, there is one point where I disagree with you, it’s the following one: You call ‘this is the rare case’ an explanation. It is not. Without anything further, it is not an explanation. It’s a description, albeit barely one.
What is lacking are additional details as to why this is a rare case, which would justify diversion from established norms.
Having re-read Harry Litman's substack and not being Harry's lawyer, he clearly and correctly calls it wrong opinion as it is, allegations (the same called it a dissenting Judge) and, quoting Litman "an ad hoc judgment—loosey-goosey and subjective—is what we get." (unquote)
I'm not aware of Harry calling it an explanation, though I agree that Harry's critique of this corrupt court of appeals could've been stronger.
A “rare case” my Aunt Fani. The court only used this phrase because Donald the Fraud Trump was involved. And let me go farther to say that he’s been involved in so many court cases, they’re not rare at all any longer.
Shouldn’t this type of reasoning point directly to the Supreme Court Justices. Two of them that clearly have acted with, the appearance of impropriety, not reported gifts or recused, their total immunity ruling for a president, along with the documented actions taken by their wives. This double standard is appalling and corrosive to the rule of law. We now have a two tiered justice system!!! I’m 75 years old and thoroughly disgusted by the last 8 years of Trump and his enablers.
I always felt the case should have been tossed by McAfee at the beginning. There was NO conflict of interest issue there. The ONLY conflict was trump trying to break the law and get away with it. Period.
I agree with you Harry, this was definitely a wrong decision 😕. Your analysis is firmly correct,reasonably applied and just makes sense. The "Rare" that they are referring to, is that This involves Trump and his F N criminal acts 😒🤬. Its not surprising that of course they would vote to destroy it.
No conflict of Interest as the whole thing was ridiculous in the first place. Either these Judges are hoping for The Orange Menace to promote them seeing as Cannon is open to the Supreme Court or they are scared. Put this with the terrorist charges for Luigi but murder for Dylan Roof and the Judicial System is sinking fast. I couldn't care less if 2 prosecutors on the same side are dating which isn't a crime, but trying to cheat a Presidential Election is. Those Judges are a disgrace.
Very clear and undeniable analysis, Harry. Another excellent "nut graf" distillation for the masses. This is why I appreciate your presence on Substack. In fact, you inspired me to open my own substack page. I share your positions on these issues and it allows me to exercise my writing skills and blow off steam. Right now I am focused on hammering home the issue that Trump is disqualified from being sworn in due to section-3 of the 14th amendment. I fear that Trump will be sworn in regardless of this but if so, that will make Trump our fist illegitimate president in US History and the Justice who swears him in a constitutional law-breaker. I am at a loss as to what to do with that emotionally. The damage Trump will do to this republic will clearly be enormous and yet he continues to tangibly elude accountability for everything. I cannot ignore the ever-present voice in the back of my head shouting for me to get out of this country while I can.
This “rare” case. Uh huh. Because it’s Dump. And because we have all heard the tapes. And because he’s as guilty as sin. And because several grand jurors have said of the evidence that they heard, it’s way way worse than any of us know. So the “rare” case is because the judges have to put the final nail in the coffin of this case. Travesty.
“As guilty as sin.” He may think he got away with something. but just wait. We may see the results of his karma before we die.
Yep.
Thank you Harry. This type of analysis is why I follow you.
Hehehe!
I was about to write what you wrote but you wrote it first.
I too have become a Harry fan and follower.
So the term "the rare case" was basically invented here so that they could look past legal precedents and rule based on their own prejudicial leanings? No wonder the public no longer trust the judicial system. It isn't only SCOTUS that is unaccountable for its actions, state courts, also.
they are mirroring our SCOTUS- make up stuff to protect the President-elect. Or is the "assistant pres-elect"?
Those state courts that are dominated by right wingers.
As the aging son of a lawyer, I love reading reasonable and precise examinations like this. Thanks, Harry. Too much "interpretation" and too many "rare" cases recently. The law is pretty precise. These judges do us a disservice by letting their prejudices inform their decisions.
That disservice is what Justice Soto Mayor has referred to as a stench.
We know why they treated this case differently than other cases.
Pointyhooded misogynist bootlickers.
"Find me 11,000 votes."
Meh
11,780
I don’t see the big deal that she dated someone on her team, regular people do it all the time, it’s not like she was dating the enemy, seems like they just wanted to create conspiracy…Courts should stay out of peoples personal lives
Imo, it’s more like they were looking for any minutia to eliminate the cases against 45.
yep.
I always thought that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade should have gotten engaged when this all (horses&*%) started up and made a big announcement about their upcoming nuptials. What would’ve happened then? Who knows, but it would’ve been an interesting “plot twist” for Trump et al. to wrangle with.
In the 21st Century, it seems, courts no longer are bound by precedent or a lower court’s findings of fact and law—this is not just a Trump thing, but a Roberts thing starting with Citizens United (2010). It does not bode well for the country … but very well for the right wing and its richest stars (including a Justice or two).
“Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." said our Democratic Republic to our judicial system, especially the Supreme Court.
And then Laurel & Hardy try to move the piano upstairs.
Funny how you've put it. Unfortunate how it's true.
Harry, you make it easy to understand law and judgements, this is a really great skill.
However, there is one point where I disagree with you, it’s the following one: You call ‘this is the rare case’ an explanation. It is not. Without anything further, it is not an explanation. It’s a description, albeit barely one.
What is lacking are additional details as to why this is a rare case, which would justify diversion from established norms.
Very astute.
Having re-read Harry Litman's substack and not being Harry's lawyer, he clearly and correctly calls it wrong opinion as it is, allegations (the same called it a dissenting Judge) and, quoting Litman "an ad hoc judgment—loosey-goosey and subjective—is what we get." (unquote)
I'm not aware of Harry calling it an explanation, though I agree that Harry's critique of this corrupt court of appeals could've been stronger.
Quick point - I have just checked myself, it’s there in the 22nd/23rd …. Let’s just say, it’s in the 3rd paragraph from the bottom.
Thankyou for your comment, I appreciate that you responded.
A “rare case” my Aunt Fani. The court only used this phrase because Donald the Fraud Trump was involved. And let me go farther to say that he’s been involved in so many court cases, they’re not rare at all any longer.
What a joke. What a waste.
Shouldn’t this type of reasoning point directly to the Supreme Court Justices. Two of them that clearly have acted with, the appearance of impropriety, not reported gifts or recused, their total immunity ruling for a president, along with the documented actions taken by their wives. This double standard is appalling and corrosive to the rule of law. We now have a two tiered justice system!!! I’m 75 years old and thoroughly disgusted by the last 8 years of Trump and his enablers.
I always felt the case should have been tossed by McAfee at the beginning. There was NO conflict of interest issue there. The ONLY conflict was trump trying to break the law and get away with it. Period.
I agree with you Harry, this was definitely a wrong decision 😕. Your analysis is firmly correct,reasonably applied and just makes sense. The "Rare" that they are referring to, is that This involves Trump and his F N criminal acts 😒🤬. Its not surprising that of course they would vote to destroy it.
Thank you Harry. Priceless.
Thats BS. trump bootlickers.
No conflict of Interest as the whole thing was ridiculous in the first place. Either these Judges are hoping for The Orange Menace to promote them seeing as Cannon is open to the Supreme Court or they are scared. Put this with the terrorist charges for Luigi but murder for Dylan Roof and the Judicial System is sinking fast. I couldn't care less if 2 prosecutors on the same side are dating which isn't a crime, but trying to cheat a Presidential Election is. Those Judges are a disgrace.
Spot on!
Very clear and undeniable analysis, Harry. Another excellent "nut graf" distillation for the masses. This is why I appreciate your presence on Substack. In fact, you inspired me to open my own substack page. I share your positions on these issues and it allows me to exercise my writing skills and blow off steam. Right now I am focused on hammering home the issue that Trump is disqualified from being sworn in due to section-3 of the 14th amendment. I fear that Trump will be sworn in regardless of this but if so, that will make Trump our fist illegitimate president in US History and the Justice who swears him in a constitutional law-breaker. I am at a loss as to what to do with that emotionally. The damage Trump will do to this republic will clearly be enormous and yet he continues to tangibly elude accountability for everything. I cannot ignore the ever-present voice in the back of my head shouting for me to get out of this country while I can.
Absolutely so!!