Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Is Ronald Reagan's Former Attorney General Edwin Meese Biased?

Is he?

Of course he is.  See my previous post.  You realize that after I have done some basic research I am just as likely as not to favor Cannon's dismissal?  My own bias is to side with conservative judicial philosophies, but not always.  In this instance I am starting from square 1 since the appointments clause was not a hot topic like Roe when I was in law school.

You have read my posts on the immunity case I assume?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Now I realize that you cannot stand her ruling, or the idea that this method to GET TRUMP as Alan Dershowitz has said, will no longer work for you, but there are quite WELL RESPECTED former prosecutors like Andy McCarthy, Ed Meese, and Michael Mukasey who know the law much better than you or I will ever know it.  

But hey, don't lose sight of trying to find some no name leftist prosecutor who will support your 'anything goes' attempt to jail him.

We all realize that you will be searching beneath any rock you can find to justify this corrupt prosecution.

Who are you talking too?  This is just like you and Greg reading meaning into Russ's assassination post that simply was not there.  In this case it is inexcusable.  Find some other straw man.  I have over twenty years of posts here on the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law I almost always take a conservative stand.   

I also have a couple of years of posts predicting that the lawfare against Trump would backfire badly, which I think is now coming to pass.

I also have posted here that the disparate treatment of Biden and Trump in their own documents cases is indefensible.

Do you actually read anything anyone else posts, or do you just tilt at figments of your imagination?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Oh really, Ed Meese is biased?  LOL

Is professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law Alan Dershowitz who taught Constitutional Law at Harvard University for 50 years biased?

We are all biased Richard.  My bias is toward a conservative judicial philosophy of the Scalia camp.   Why do you think bias is wrong?  Why would you think any of these professionals are without bias?  They would not think that they lack bias.

Cannon issues a ruling favoring Trump, and you reflexively believe with apparently 100% certainty that it is a sound legal ruling supported by unbiased experts.  You also appear to think that anyone who disagrees is just a foolish partisan hack.  No surprise there.  

It was surprising that you stated (arrogantly) "Now I realize that you cannot stand her ruling, or the idea that this method to GET TRUMP as Alan Dershowitz has said, will no longer work for you,"  I was surprised because I said no such thing, I expressly stated that I had no opinion yet since this is a new legal issue to me, and also because I have a track record of posting against lawfare in general and in support of Trump's position in the immunity and hush money cases.

I should not have been surprised given that you read your own agenda into Russ's post just the other day.  But still, I'm an optimist and I always hope you will change.  Just like I hope Trump changes when he is elected president in 2024.  Foolish hopes I'm sure.

Unlike you, I am not going to comment on the merits of the Cannon dismissal until I at least have enough understanding of the law to articulate a defensible opinion of my own.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Why on Earth would you think I am interested in your Opinion(s) on the Immunity case?  

That gave me a good chuckle I have to say.  

I've read some of your stuff and they aren't based on any legal precedents, but mostly just based upon your massive, overwhelming TDS that guides you in life. 

Kind of like Sonia Sotomayor's dissents which are almost always 100% of the time enveloped in her EMOTIONS rather than legal scholarship or citing relevant cases.

When that completely unqualified loser on the SC wrote her latest opinion based in hysterics and creating psychotic scenarios to SUPPORT her ignorant, hysterical, and moronic dissent, such as ones like "This gives Trump carte blanche power to employ Seal Team 6 to take out his political opponents", that was exposure enough to realize that she belongs nowhere near a United States Supreme Court seat, but rather a straightjacket.

Reading her idiotic dissent just made me embarrassed to know that other leaders of the world were reading her utterly idiotic ignorance.

But I'm sure that YOU felt her dissent had merit, correct??  LOL!! 

No, I'll take Andy McCarthy, Ed Meese, and Michael Mukasey, along with Alan Dershowiz, as well as Georgetown University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, and their reasoning over Yourself.

I guess you missed the post where I said (in a regretted moment of passion) that Sotomayor "beclowned" herself.   Reading your spew is like stepping into the Twilight Zone.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I've read your numerous "I hope they can get Trump..... " postings over the past couple of years.

But not to worry because we know that you'll say that Professor Turley is biased, correct?    LOL  

You have not, because I have never posted anything like that.  Has anyone else read anything like "I hope they can get Trump" from me?  Of course not, because I have not ever posted that.  I was highly critical of just about everything that happened in the hush money case, and I went round and round with Rod defending the immunity decision.  Hell, I even cited Professor Turley in a post to Rod.

No discussion with you is possible, because even when agreement is right there for everyone to see, you'll simply attribute a false position to the other party and proceed to attack the straw man.  It is odd and surreal.  I will admit to feeling slimy when I agree with you.  It is useful though, because it makes me reexamine my positions.  

So in parting;

1.  I posted at extreme length about the due process problems in the hush money case and I guaranteed Trump would win on appeal. 
2.  I posted at great length in support of the legal correctness and legal necessity of the immunity decision.  I openly mocked Sotomayor's dissent in a post with James.
3.  I posted a couple of times that the prosecution of Trump for retained documents while everyone else gets a pass is a horrible look politically.
4.  FWIW I posted at length that Hunter's initial sweetheart deal was travesty of justice.
5.  I mocked Fanni Willis and her boyfriend when the shit-show in Atlanta surfaced.
6.  And I openly predicted that the lawfare strategy would backfire.  I think it did/is.  Also, I posted that these prosecutions in general, even if potentially legal and potentially caused by Trump's own actions, are fundamentally politically motivated and that is a really bad idea.
7.  FWIW I have defended the Supreme Court in general and many times posted my opinion that it is the most admirable branch of the federal government.  I defended Thomas from Rod's attacks.

Bottom line, I posted and articulated in great detail well researched defensible positions on legal issues of the day that we all know you agree with.  Rod and I disagree on all this stuff for example.  I respect Rod's position.  You on the other hand are just the butt of jokes because instead of acknowledging points of agreement, you simply lie about the other person's actual position and then argue with your mischaracterization.  So sad.

Originally Posted by James Brown

You have not, because I have never posted anything like that.  Has anyone else read anything like "I hope they can get Trump" from me?  Of course not, because I have not ever posted that.  I was highly critical of just about everything that happened in the hush money case, and I went round and round with Rod defending the immunity decision.  Hell, I even cited Professor Turley in a post to Rod.

No discussion with you is possible, because even when agreement is right there for everyone to see, you'll simply attribute a false position to the other party and proceed to attack the straw man.  It is odd and surreal.  I will admit to feeling slimy when I agree with you.  It is useful though, because it causes me to reexamine my positions.  

So in parting;

1.  I posted at extreme length about the due process problems in the hush money case and I guaranteed Trump would win on appeal.   
2.  I posted at great length in support of the legal correctness and legal necessity of the immunity decision.  I openly mocked Sotomayor's dissent in a post with James.
3.  I posted a couple of times that the prosecution of Trump for retained documents while everyone else gets a pass is a horrible look politically.
4.  FWIW I posted at length that Hunter's initial sweetheart deal was travesty of justice.
5.  I mocked Fanni Willis and her boyfriend when the shit-show in Atlanta surfaced.
6.  And I openly predicted that the lawfare strategy would backfire.  I think it did/is.  Also, I posted that these prosecutions in general, even if potentially legal and potentially caused by Trump's own actions, are fundamentally politically motivated and that is a really bad idea.
7.  FWIW I have defended the Supreme Court in general and many times posted my opinion that it is the most admirable branch of the federal government.  I defended Thomas from Rod's attacks.

Bottom line, I posted and articulated in great detail well researched defensible positions on legal issues of the day that we all know you agree with.  Rod and I disagree on all this stuff for example.  I respect Rod's position.  You on the other hand are just the butt of jokes because instead of acknowledging points of agreement, you simply lie about the other person's actual position and then argue with your mischaracterization.  So sad.

When I have time and have completed some reading about the issues surrounding Cannon's decision, I'll post my thoughts.  Probably in a different thread.  Rod should start a "MAGA Cannon" thread soon.  I like discussions with Rod since we rarely agree on anything, but he is an honest and thoughtful debater, unlike you.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Jim,

Respectfully, there is no doubt that the left has engaged in inappropriate political rhetoric, and I understand that you are not excusing right-wingers and their behavior. However, that does not mean that the violent political rhetoric of the right-wing MAGA movement and Trump did not also have an effect. When Paul Pelosi was attacked and almost bludgeoned to death, Trump mocked him at his rallies to the applause of thousands of his supporters. I remember when Trump said, "When the looting starts, the shooting starts," and "Proud boys stand down and stand by." It's hard to blame anyone for comparing Trump to a fascist when he calls immigrants vermin and says they are poisoning the blood of the country, echoing Mein Kampf. There are so many examples, like "very fine" people on both sides in Charlottesville and when he told his rally-goers that the Second Amendment people could keep Hillary Clinton from nominating Supreme Court Justices. On January 6th, his followers erected gallows and chanted for the handling of Mike Pence, and Trump said and did nothing. He has since called those people patriots and victims and pledged to pardon them. We could, of course, go on and on and on with examples of the violent political rhetoric the right-wing MAGA movement and Trump have been engaging in for at least nine years now. There is no way this real and near-constant barrage does not connect to real-world violence, including what has happened recently. Everyone, please be sure to reserve some outrage for all of the right-wing violent political rhetoric as well.

Understood, and these are great points.   Both sides of the aisle are calling for the political rhetoric to be cooled off a bit.  I hope they mean it.  Probably a fool's hope though.

In these forums, we stake out positions and defend them.  Often I am defending a conservative position, because I am fundamentally conservative.  Also, other than Russ, there is no one who posts here who is capable of honestly and competently defending a conservative position.  Please understand that this does not mean I disregard or fail to appreciate the legitimacy of the liberal position.

As you know from our many "guard rail" discussions over the years, I think the system is robust, durable, and able to rebuff the baser inclinations of any president.  So, I have a special dislike for the "end of democracy" rhetoric that is (or maybe was?) popular with the left up to last week.  But note, even though I think that the "Hitler/fascist/end of democracy" rhetoric is wrong, ineffective, even politically detrimental, this does not mean I think Trump's rhetoric against immigrants and all the rest is OK.  It is because I do not think that he has the demeanor and  integrity to be president that I am going to vote against him.  Not because he will appoint himself dictator for life or any other nonsense.

Can be found here.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/d8aad6cc-6d7c-4f4e-80e7-806a4aef96ad.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

93 pages, I'm about halfway through it.   I recommend this to anyone interested in the issue, unless of course one already knows everything there is to know.  So far, I think Cannon defends her conclusion well, even if she is applying an exceptionally literal and narrow interpretation of the possible authorizing statutes cited by Smith.   As Rod notes elsewhere, this will be appealed and has far-reaching implications concerning the appointment and use of special counsel from outside of the government.   

I certainly did not remember that we used to have an expressly worded, post Watergate, independent counsel statute that expired in 1999.  Had that statute been renewed, this case would not have been heard.  This is a theme of interest.  Congress refuses to act for whatever reason and the agencies, in this case the DOJ, step in to fill the perceived void.  Conservative judges and Justices, like Cannon and Thomas are seldom convinced that the agency action without express congressional authority is permissible.   

Some appreciate these curbs on agency power, and typically I am one of them.  But it is indisputable that those who want the agencies to have lots of authority to do important work for the public good hate these kind of rulings.   

I understand Cannon's point, and so far I do not see that it is a "right" or "wrong" decision.  It is clearly a conservative decision reflecting a conservative legal point of view from the Scalia/Thomas school of thought.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Can be found here.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/d8aad6cc-6d7c-4f4e-80e7-806a4aef96ad.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

93 pages, I'm about halfway through it.   I recommend this to anyone interested in the issue, unless of course one already knows everything there is to know.  So far, I think Cannon defends her conclusion well, even if she is applying an exceptionally literal and narrow interpretation of the possible authorizing statutes cited by Smith.   As Rod notes elsewhere, this will be appealed and has far-reaching implications concerning the appointment and use of special counsel from outside of the government.   

I certainly did not remember that we used to have an expressly worded, post Watergate, independent counsel statute that expired in 1999.  Had that statute been renewed, this case would not have been heard.  This is a theme of interest.  Congress refuses to act for whatever reason and the agencies, in this case the DOJ, step in to fill the perceived void.  Conservative judges and Justices, like Cannon and Thomas are seldom convinced that the agency action without express congressional authority is permissible.   

Some appreciate these curbs on agency power, and typically I am one of them.  But it is indisputable that those who want the agencies to have lots of authority to do important work for the public good hate these kind of rulings.   

I understand Cannon's point, and so far I do not see that it is a "right" or "wrong" decision.  It is clearly a conservative decision reflecting a conservative legal point of view from the Scalia/Thomas school of thought.

The issue here is not simple.  It is not as Richard seems to believe, "no presidential appointment plus no congressional approval equals illegal appointment."   

The final line of the Appointments Clause says:

"but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/

Cannon concludes, with some hesitancy, that Smith is an inferior officer.  Inferior to Garland of course.  Although this is not as clear cut as it might seem since Smith acts with no oversight by design, so he was argued to be a principal officer by Trump's lawyers.  They lost on that argument.  

The issue is then, "Is there a statute that authorizes Garland as head of the DOJ to appoint an inferior Officer (special counsel) directly."  If the Watergate era independent counsel statute had not expired, the answer would have been "Yes, duh..."  But that statute did indeed expire.  Smith's appointment cites a handful of statutes cited by the DOJ for this authority after 1999.  Cannon goes through each possible authorizing statute in painstaking detail and concludes that none of the cited statues give Garland the authority he believes he has.  So the heavy lifting in this matter requires no nuanced parsing of the Constitution, but rather a nuanced parsing of the candidate authorizing statutes.   Cannon spends a lot of time on this starting on page 22.  It is interesting if you have some time.

Any pundit who simply says that her order is obvious or was easy under the Constitution and any pundit who says Cannon's decision is the result of her being an incompetent Trump-appointed political hack is not capable of comprehending the issue at hand.  Or at best they are ignoring the legal issues for political expedience.