I can see sending it back down but it seems a lot of this case depends on exactly what was said. What the NRA and its insurers were actually doing was flatly illegal under NY state law. They all paid millions in fines.
And Amy Barrett joins the ethics fold.
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
the case wasn't about what the nra was doing illegally w/r/t marketing insurance products. no one contests that. it was about (or most accurately, sufficiently alleged to be about for Mtd purposes) pressuring regulated insurers to sever ties with them based on nra's advocacy activities.
I understand that. And if the conversation was, "What you're planning with the NRA is illegal, you can't do that" there's no problem. If the conversation was, "The NRA is bad people and you shouldn't do business with them, legal or illegal" that's obviously a problem. I know nothing about the facts of the case in that regard. Is it a "he said, she said" or is there a record of illegal coercive conduct?
We'll see; case up on granting a motion to dismiss. Apparently, enough of a record/allegations to get past that, which of course may be a low bar.
Time since the Court agreed to take Trump’s case = 91 days
Time since the Court heard the Trump immunity case = 35 days
Time since the Court heard the Trump immunity case = 35 days
This by itself is a massive concern. It was what? 10 days to take up and decide Bush v Gore?
i'm still a bit mystified as to why either faster, or even slower, would be more or less an indicator of anything. We both agree that it's an important case, and that Trump should certainly lose more than he should win in terms of the substantive outcome, but in the absence of some sort of actual legal deadline (such as cited in Bush v Gore, whether you like it or not, and such as has driven some of the redistricting cases, whether you like them or not), having taken the case, I'm at a loss as to which it should be either accelerated or decelerated .
It's an indicator that SCOTUS doesn't want any other trials before the election. There's no real secret here.
or, less dramatically, it's an indicator that in the absence of a statutory deadline, they'll process cases in the ordinary course.
Judge Luttig stated the opposite.
The decision here was crystal clear, and the "wider" claims being explored by the court are completely unnecessary. President has no role, whatsoever, in elections and ballot counting. Trump was not acting in any "official duty" on any of it, and they simply could have declined the case, acknowledging that.
The "red herring" that some future President could face charges over some form of "official" conduct did not need to be heard, at all, here.
As I've said elsewhere, I personally agree that the case is not that hard because in this country, the king can, in fact, do wrong. But for comparison, today we had a unanimous (and thus presumably not That hard) opinion from a case argued in February, for which cert had been granted in October 2023.
That is not what this case is about.
The immunity being attempted is for subverting an election.
It is not remotely a close call for the SC to simply acknowledge there is no merit.
They did not have to balloon the case up to "any possible thing a President might do", which is precisely what Alito is attempting to do here.
🗑
Amy Coney Barrett's Husband Is Representing Fox in a Lawsuit
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, is defending Fox Corporation in a defamation case.www.rollingstone.com
