2 days, 2 blows agains the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
I am sure you will not like this analysis from yesterday's:
www.vox.com
Great, liberals can feel free to storm the court Monday and prevent the immunity decision from being handed down. It appears Roberts sees nothing wrong with that.
It might not save Trump, according to Smith and Co. Their argument is narrower they say.
www.nbcnews.com
apnews.com
No. Malicious prosecution is a civil action and trump would not win on that claim
It might not save Trump, according to Smith and Co. Their argument is narrower they say.
Re the decision, Brown Jackson was in the majority, and Barrett--who many on here have referred to as a Trump lackey--was in the dissent.
Liberals used to think it was a good thing to limit prosecutor's powers to enlarge the scope of a statute.
Supreme Court rules for Jan. 6 rioter challenging obstruction charge
The closely watched case focuses on a charge that former President Donald Trump also faces in his election interference case.
Presumably some place really nice. It would seem he's earned it in their eyes.
Just to round out the day, anybody know where Justice Thomas is being taken by his friends for the Summer break?
Did you read what you cut and pasted? Literally from your own post:
It all hinges on how to read the word "otherwise." Regardless, it doesn't mean anyone goes free automatically. It just means that some of the J6 might have their indictments quashed if they are dependent on the broader reading of the statute.
Would not the "or" offset readings of "otherwise"? And with otherwise I could see problematic, but or precludes the previous from being required.
No. The state and prosecutors have absolute immunity.
I think the applicable tort would be malicious abuse of process. Maybe also some kind of constitutional deprivation under section 1983. Absolute immunity would bar any claim.
Malicious prosecution is a civil action for filing frivolous charges. I trust that’s what stoll was referring to. Abuse can arise from crim or civil but again given the specific case malicious is it and not a winner. I think off the top of my head
Chevron never made sense . It’s contrary to how Colorado treats bureaucracies and all other states that I am aware of. Good to see that review of agency decisions is again in the hands of the courts.
Mal Pros requires the P to show success with the underlying action. Trump lost. Abuse of Process requires a showing that the real purpose of the underlying litigation was collateral to the merits. Such as election or campaign interference.
Roberts wrote for the court in Loper Bright. Gorsuch wrote a concurrence that no other justice joined.
Again, the ruling you hate is what Republicans wanted. The ruling here is saying that law was crap is what Republicans wanted. No matter what position Republicans take on this, miraculously they win.
I mean, they kind of dealt with some of that already after they overturned Roe...except it was people outside their house who were planning to murder them.
All that I want, on any issue, is a proper interpretation and application of the law.
What is the liberal case for keeping Chevron as is? It seems to me that everyone from all sides of the political spectrum would want to have judicial review of agency interpretations of their own power and authority.
Your criteria still leave a big gap. Most cases that reach the SCt are indeterminate using those criteria. Law isn’t math.
I understand that. I’m deliberately simplifying it - for obvious reasons.
Only a few were convicted only of obstruction. Most were convicted of violent crimes. They’re not hostages, they’re criminals. The ruling only narrows the obstruction charges so all the cases will be reviewed. It could be that Trump’s obstruction charges and/or convictions will stand. They definitely stand in the documents case since. Those are classic obstruction.
And those people should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. I see no reason people standing before gallows chanting "hang Mike Pence" deserve less?
That guy was prosecuted, but many of them weren't because they were said to be exercising their right to protest. I do accept your terms though, people violently protesting should ALL face the same type of repercussions the January 6th folks did. So bring on the months to years of incarceration while awaiting trial and then the onerous sentences.
Are you seriously equating that with rioting, assaulting police and criminal trespass? All of it because they were duped into believing the big lie about a stolen election. You always claim not to be a Trumpster, but you use the same silly defenses for Trump and the J6 criminals that open and proud Trumpsters use.
That statement reads as if written by a solid law and order Republican.
