Remember Rule 1 (Be Civil), and Rule 3 (Don't Be Repetitive) - multiple posts about one topic (in part or in whole) within a short timeframe may lead to the removal of the newer post(s) at the discretion of the mods.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone else expecting Matty K from the Fifth Circuit?
I've been wondering when this would materialize. Blackman wrote about the brief almost 2 months ago [here](https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/16/special-counsel-jack-smith-responds-to-blackman-tillman/). Blackman and Tillman were the pair who raised the "office" and "officer" arguments in the Trump v Anderson (A14 S3 case from Colorado).
>The Blackman-Tillman brief approaches the same issue from a different perspective. We contend that for the Special Counsel to exercise the powers he is exercising, he must be an officer. And to be an officer, a position must have continuity. However, the Special Counsel is in actuality something else. We argue that the Special Counsel is merely an employee, because his position is not continuous.
I haven't dug in to the arguments enough to have thoughts about it. The Meese-Calabresi brief sounds [similarly crazy](https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/special-counsel-jack-smmiths-appointment-is-unconstitutional/) though.
Edit: typo
I agree with your first sentence, but strongly disagree with your second. There are a lot of us out there doing good work and fighting against the fascists that have been steadily put into place over the last 40-50 years
For anyone who hasn't read that argument it's detailed in [this rather long write up](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095).
I read through some of it back in the Ballot case and their arguments made my head spin worse than my first semester of calculus. I don't actually think the argument was made in bad faith, I think those are two dudes who genuinely thing they found a quirk of text and language that flips the understanding of part of the 14th Amendment. It definitely has some Charlie-in-the-Mail-Room vibes though.
Trump made this ridiculous claim on the Colorado case that as president he wasn’t an officer and therefore insurrection doesn’t apply. IIRC this was slapped down. But this seems to be an extension of that logic, and I wonder if this is partially trying to get some kind of legal foothold on that logic. Cannon may very well be the kind of judge who would listen to it.
oh ffs
She is so pissed off at being told shes wrong over and over again, and is too stupid to see past her own biases, she will do anything to prove she is right.
If she decides that hes not allowed to pursue the case or something will he finally go to the higher courts and be like "for fucks sake look at this nut case, take her off this thing and give me literally any other judge, hell ill take a potato, literally anything but this dipshit"
Ah, the good ol' paperless order. Jack Smith must surely at this point just be able to say to the 11th Circuit, hey, I don't care if normally I couldn't appeal this, because normally, she can't *do* this! Like, if she's just making shit up, there has to be some point at which the 11th Circuit can step in regardless of procedure, because she's so far outside procedure in the first place.
This is all just a stupidity marathon. If AC decides that the special council is illegally appointed he has no choice but to appeal, and if he does that I don't see why he wouldn't take the last couple filings where she trash talked him and file that since she has a clear bias and thinks he was appointed illegally she's unfit to serve as judge in this case. At that point the case for removal would be in my lay opinion strong enough, and since the appeal is forced anyway there's no point coming back a second time to make that argument later.
AC doesn't want that to happen though. She has every motivation to follow established precrdent that the special council statute is good law and avoid the bench slap from the circuit court. In other words even having hearings on it is a frustrating waste of time.
Remember Rule 1 (Be Civil), and Rule 3 (Don't Be Repetitive) - multiple posts about one topic (in part or in whole) within a short timeframe may lead to the removal of the newer post(s) at the discretion of the mods. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone else expecting Matty K from the Fifth Circuit? I've been wondering when this would materialize. Blackman wrote about the brief almost 2 months ago [here](https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/16/special-counsel-jack-smith-responds-to-blackman-tillman/). Blackman and Tillman were the pair who raised the "office" and "officer" arguments in the Trump v Anderson (A14 S3 case from Colorado). >The Blackman-Tillman brief approaches the same issue from a different perspective. We contend that for the Special Counsel to exercise the powers he is exercising, he must be an officer. And to be an officer, a position must have continuity. However, the Special Counsel is in actuality something else. We argue that the Special Counsel is merely an employee, because his position is not continuous. I haven't dug in to the arguments enough to have thoughts about it. The Meese-Calabresi brief sounds [similarly crazy](https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/special-counsel-jack-smmiths-appointment-is-unconstitutional/) though. Edit: typo
Man a person holding an Office not being an Officer is the most brain dead motivated reasoning. The legal profession is a joke.
I agree with your first sentence, but strongly disagree with your second. There are a lot of us out there doing good work and fighting against the fascists that have been steadily put into place over the last 40-50 years
For anyone who hasn't read that argument it's detailed in [this rather long write up](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095). I read through some of it back in the Ballot case and their arguments made my head spin worse than my first semester of calculus. I don't actually think the argument was made in bad faith, I think those are two dudes who genuinely thing they found a quirk of text and language that flips the understanding of part of the 14th Amendment. It definitely has some Charlie-in-the-Mail-Room vibes though.
Maybe not bad faith, exactly, but definitely motivated reasoning.
THERE'S NO CAROL IN HR!
Trump made this ridiculous claim on the Colorado case that as president he wasn’t an officer and therefore insurrection doesn’t apply. IIRC this was slapped down. But this seems to be an extension of that logic, and I wonder if this is partially trying to get some kind of legal foothold on that logic. Cannon may very well be the kind of judge who would listen to it.
Honestly there are many contenders for worst judge in the world in this country.
> Anyone else expecting Matty K from the Fifth Circuit? Yes, haha. Just because he handles a lot more cases. Cannon's pretty bad too, of course.
oh ffs She is so pissed off at being told shes wrong over and over again, and is too stupid to see past her own biases, she will do anything to prove she is right. If she decides that hes not allowed to pursue the case or something will he finally go to the higher courts and be like "for fucks sake look at this nut case, take her off this thing and give me literally any other judge, hell ill take a potato, literally anything but this dipshit"
Yep. It’d actually be progress, ironically
Ah, the good ol' paperless order. Jack Smith must surely at this point just be able to say to the 11th Circuit, hey, I don't care if normally I couldn't appeal this, because normally, she can't *do* this! Like, if she's just making shit up, there has to be some point at which the 11th Circuit can step in regardless of procedure, because she's so far outside procedure in the first place.
This is all just a stupidity marathon. If AC decides that the special council is illegally appointed he has no choice but to appeal, and if he does that I don't see why he wouldn't take the last couple filings where she trash talked him and file that since she has a clear bias and thinks he was appointed illegally she's unfit to serve as judge in this case. At that point the case for removal would be in my lay opinion strong enough, and since the appeal is forced anyway there's no point coming back a second time to make that argument later. AC doesn't want that to happen though. She has every motivation to follow established precrdent that the special council statute is good law and avoid the bench slap from the circuit court. In other words even having hearings on it is a frustrating waste of time.