Thank you for the explanation. Personally, I am shocked and angry that our partisan hack of a Secretary of State is trying to determine who we can vote for.
Sotomayer seems confused much of the time and even gets the name of Jefferson Davis wrong. She thinks he was named "Jefferson Davies". Is it possible that she's led her entire life not getting that right?
It may well be the Court's, and particularly CJ Roberts' desire for comity and a sense of historical responsibility that wins the day for Trump. The genius leftards who came up with this hare-brained scheme to remove Trump from the ballots in several of the states wherein they hold sway simply got high on their own supply, to coin a phrase. They thought that, since"everybody they knew" (hat-tip, Pauline Kael) agreed that Trump was a racist Nazi insurrectionist who wanted to destroy our (not a) democarcy, they would have no trouble getting their way. They parsed the 14th Amendment so favorably to their position that it would inevitably be rejected when reviewed by a less overtly partisan court, viz., The Supremes. Or so I fervently hope and pray.
All great points, Glenn. As I mentioned a couple of months ago, I hoped it will be a unanimous decision and still believe it will be in favor of Trump. I was not impressed with Trump's attorney, even if he has argued before the Supreme Court multiple times. The Supreme's are definitely looking for an off-ramp to not have to decide in Colorado's favor. I believe the Supreme's will refuse to hear the immunity case. This will allow for all the voters to decide for themselves, based on a jury of Trump's peers, his innocence or guilt of the January 6th case. It wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme's two cases regarding Trump are concluded on or before the end of February.
Thanks’ for taking one for the team, Glenn. I'm allergic to listening to lawyers mainly because there is a built-in tendency for them to try to befuddle, bemuse, complicate, and confound simple issues for their own profit and for the benefit of their client. That tactic works on occasion. This decision should be unanimous, but the leftist activists have made it crystal clear that they have time on their hands and they know where the Justices live and where they dine out.
I handled hundreds of cases as a lawyer. It's not an exaggeration to say that every single time I was convinced that my case was in the right. (That's part of the reason that clients liked me -- I invariably believed in their case.)
In retrospect, I'm sure that sometimes I was wrong. And sometimes the court or a jury said so. I don't think now, and didn't think then, that the fix was in against me. I think that others -- more objective and not so emotionally invested in the matter -- saw things differently.
That’s very innocent and admirable of you. I’ve handled many hundreds, certainly over a thousand, cases, including over 150 (civil) jury trials quite successfully. If I had to be convinced that every client of mine was in the right, I would have had fewer clients & cases.
Congratulations Mr. Doug, that you were able to effectively represent clients you thought were in the wrong.
I never did. Not because all my clients were in the right, but because at the time I believed they were. Call it naivete if you will.
But for me, it worked just as well as your conscious, insincere advocacy of positions you didn't believe in worked for you. We all have our own different approaches.
As for the number of clients and cases I've had, and other aspects of manhood if you feel compelled to go there, well, I've done OK.
Trump was tried by the House, and found not guilty by the Senate of insurrection. The 14th Amendment should only hold for those convicted of a high crime or misdemeanor. Let the voters make that decision.
I read somewhere that even former Confederates were eventually allowed to run for political offices at every level. I'm not a lawyer but the entire Get Trump debacle smacks of a of bill of attainder-like process in that the multi-year effort to destroy him is unprecedented. Even the Radical Republicans, after they lost in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, didn't continue to go after him the way the lefties have endlessly been at Trump.
“They will come to a fair decision in a fair way…” That’s a charming & quaint notion you have there, Glenn. Perhaps a hoped for triumph of hope over experience? It’s almost as if you’re new and innocent to the ways of American politics, most definitely including the judiciary.
Indeed, I do. There are plenty of good judges & also plenty of lousy ones. Including on the Supreme Court. I have very little confidence in the ability, objectivity or fidelity to the Constitution of Jackson or Sotomayor, for example. Do you?
It's puzzling to me that you spent a career answering to judges that you have such little regard for.
It occurs to me that maybe that's because your practice was mainly in state courts, which in my limited experience is a whole different and inferior ballgame to the federal courts.
Or maybe it's just a different temperament between you and I. For me, it was always a tremendous privilege to practice law, and an honor to appear before relatively low-paid judges who saw judging not as a job but as a calling.
Anyway, this tangent isn't very productive, so I'll end it here. Glenn
Thank you for the explanation. Personally, I am shocked and angry that our partisan hack of a Secretary of State is trying to determine who we can vote for.
Sotomayer seems confused much of the time and even gets the name of Jefferson Davis wrong. She thinks he was named "Jefferson Davies". Is it possible that she's led her entire life not getting that right?
The vote of the liberal justices is almost always predetermined and they vote as a unified block.
Ideology trumps the argument.
It may well be the Court's, and particularly CJ Roberts' desire for comity and a sense of historical responsibility that wins the day for Trump. The genius leftards who came up with this hare-brained scheme to remove Trump from the ballots in several of the states wherein they hold sway simply got high on their own supply, to coin a phrase. They thought that, since"everybody they knew" (hat-tip, Pauline Kael) agreed that Trump was a racist Nazi insurrectionist who wanted to destroy our (not a) democarcy, they would have no trouble getting their way. They parsed the 14th Amendment so favorably to their position that it would inevitably be rejected when reviewed by a less overtly partisan court, viz., The Supremes. Or so I fervently hope and pray.
All great points, Glenn. As I mentioned a couple of months ago, I hoped it will be a unanimous decision and still believe it will be in favor of Trump. I was not impressed with Trump's attorney, even if he has argued before the Supreme Court multiple times. The Supreme's are definitely looking for an off-ramp to not have to decide in Colorado's favor. I believe the Supreme's will refuse to hear the immunity case. This will allow for all the voters to decide for themselves, based on a jury of Trump's peers, his innocence or guilt of the January 6th case. It wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme's two cases regarding Trump are concluded on or before the end of February.
Thanks’ for taking one for the team, Glenn. I'm allergic to listening to lawyers mainly because there is a built-in tendency for them to try to befuddle, bemuse, complicate, and confound simple issues for their own profit and for the benefit of their client. That tactic works on occasion. This decision should be unanimous, but the leftist activists have made it crystal clear that they have time on their hands and they know where the Justices live and where they dine out.
Just curious about how it can be a fair decision fairly arrived at, if Trump loses. The whole business is a farce and all of America knows it.
I handled hundreds of cases as a lawyer. It's not an exaggeration to say that every single time I was convinced that my case was in the right. (That's part of the reason that clients liked me -- I invariably believed in their case.)
In retrospect, I'm sure that sometimes I was wrong. And sometimes the court or a jury said so. I don't think now, and didn't think then, that the fix was in against me. I think that others -- more objective and not so emotionally invested in the matter -- saw things differently.
That’s very innocent and admirable of you. I’ve handled many hundreds, certainly over a thousand, cases, including over 150 (civil) jury trials quite successfully. If I had to be convinced that every client of mine was in the right, I would have had fewer clients & cases.
Congratulations Mr. Doug, that you were able to effectively represent clients you thought were in the wrong.
I never did. Not because all my clients were in the right, but because at the time I believed they were. Call it naivete if you will.
But for me, it worked just as well as your conscious, insincere advocacy of positions you didn't believe in worked for you. We all have our own different approaches.
As for the number of clients and cases I've had, and other aspects of manhood if you feel compelled to go there, well, I've done OK.
Trump was tried by the House, and found not guilty by the Senate of insurrection. The 14th Amendment should only hold for those convicted of a high crime or misdemeanor. Let the voters make that decision.
I read somewhere that even former Confederates were eventually allowed to run for political offices at every level. I'm not a lawyer but the entire Get Trump debacle smacks of a of bill of attainder-like process in that the multi-year effort to destroy him is unprecedented. Even the Radical Republicans, after they lost in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, didn't continue to go after him the way the lefties have endlessly been at Trump.
“They will come to a fair decision in a fair way…” That’s a charming & quaint notion you have there, Glenn. Perhaps a hoped for triumph of hope over experience? It’s almost as if you’re new and innocent to the ways of American politics, most definitely including the judiciary.
Yeah, Mr. Doug, I don't really know a darned thing about the judiciary. How could I?
;)
Indeed, I do. There are plenty of good judges & also plenty of lousy ones. Including on the Supreme Court. I have very little confidence in the ability, objectivity or fidelity to the Constitution of Jackson or Sotomayor, for example. Do you?
It's puzzling to me that you spent a career answering to judges that you have such little regard for.
It occurs to me that maybe that's because your practice was mainly in state courts, which in my limited experience is a whole different and inferior ballgame to the federal courts.
Or maybe it's just a different temperament between you and I. For me, it was always a tremendous privilege to practice law, and an honor to appear before relatively low-paid judges who saw judging not as a job but as a calling.
Anyway, this tangent isn't very productive, so I'll end it here. Glenn
Fair enough. I suspect there’s more overlap between our respective views of litigation than appears here. Thanks for engaging & I like your work.