Notices tagged with 1

@marshall @jezra And the last time you checked your eyes. Was it #1 or #2 stone?

You might need to get a new screen.

Okay, this is just plain wrong. (Screenshot #1)

Stand by while I find a copy of the Constitution. 🤓 Got it. See Screenshot #2

He has it backward. All Congress can do is impeach and remove, but this doesn't preclude criminal actions after the president is out of office.

He argues that he was acquitted by Congress so no criminal prosecutions are possible, which wouldn't make sense.

What if crimes come to light after he leaves office?

4/

This is from Marbury v. Madison. (Screenshot #1)

Now he is assuming that anything he does as president, even stuff that has nothing to do with the office of the president, comes under official duties.

Specifically, he seems to think that directing slates of electors to persuade electors not to certify the election for Biden. (#2)

Of course, it is completely laughable to think that anything to do with slates of electors is in the "outer rim" of the duties of the president.

6/

The president has nothing to do with elections, with the VP's duties in Congress (which are legislative), electors, etc.

These are not within the outer perimeter.

Here is where he says that anything he does personally or as a candidate for office is part of his role as president. (Screenshot #1)

To answer questions about frivolous and sanctions: Defendants in criminal matters are given leeway in making creative arguments.

The brief isn't badly done. Nothing I see is sanctionable.

10/

Here is the fatal flaw in his argument: He claims that anything he does as president falls within the outer perimeter of his duties.

Also, he is quoting from an amicus brief. (Screenshot #1)

I found the brief he is quoting. You can see the original brief he is citing in screenshots #2 and #3.

Well, goodness. The brief he is citing says the language of incitement is not part of a president's duties.

The main point: An amicus brief is not law. It isn't authority for anything.

9/

Screenshot #1, taken literally, would mean that a president can post anything he wants on social media related to an election and be free from any criminal prosecution.

Silly.

Each screenshot is pure fantasy.

46 pages of this!!

I'm looking forward to how directing alternate slates of electors "lies at the heart of the President’s official duties."

I skipped ahead and found the section:

"Allegedly organizing contingent slates of electors falls within the President’s official duties."

12/

I was looking at non-Star Trek work by Jeffrey Combs and I discovered that he was "Spectator/Prole #1" in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jo… where fellow recurring Star Trek actor Gary Graham plays the main role.

A Hollywood mecha live action from 1990? Sounds awful. I have to see it now.
1990 film by Stuart Gordon

@AstroKatie For public talks (on basically any subject) the #1 thing I'm looking for is the speaker's passion and excitement for the topic. This often goes hand-in-hand with learning new things, because people who are deeply passionate about things often bring compelling insights, but a good speaker is one who makes me care, and that almost always starts with showing me why *they* care.

@gregpak This is the #1 question I've fielded today. I wish I knew. My guess is maybe that the Samoas melt too much? I haven't had the Toffee-tastic so I can't speak to their structural integrity.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but if there was ever a situation that demanded one, this is it.

The Tiramisu: where it came from and how it became Italy’s most famous dessert (Ep #1) | James Hoffmann

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWMbuTc7iIU

A court's power cannot be expanded by "judicial decree" is a burn⤵️ (Screenshot #1)

If the court allows Trump to have a Special Master, they have to allow every subject of a search to also have a special master.

Defense lawyers everywhere: DARN. (2)

Next, the court marches through the facts.

(Spoiler: They won't adopt Trump's version.)

During the year the government tried to get the docs back, Trump never tried to claim executive privilege or assert that he'd declassified documents.

4/

But we didn't need the clue because we already know the ending.

Remember how Trump's lawyers kept changing their sto

The court isn't having it. Here is how the court summarizes his claims which were his initial claims, before he realized they weren't going to work so he tried other arguments #1 But none of this matters if the court doesn't have jurisdiction in the first place.

#3

Are we having fun yet?

(By this point in my thread, people on Twitter were leaving negative, cynical comments. They're the type to spoil parties.)

Screenshot #1: This is sort of funny and not funny at the same time. Plaintiff had no arguments so Cannon helped him out by thinking up some.

The district court is not supposed to be helping one of the parties come up with justifications.

For Cannon, the district court judge, this is like getting an F in law school.

7/

@dajbelshaw did #1 touch on anything about race issues.

@csepp That does seem like a difference in philosophy large enough that you shouldn't use their stuff.

Lately I consider philosophy the #1 factor in adoption choice. e.g. no more Slack for me.

I actually subscribe to "worse is better" myself. But with the following interpretation:

“It is far better to have an under-featured product that is rock solid, fast, and small than one that covers what an expert would consider the complete requirements.” (https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf; pg 219)

myth #1: everyone here is being forced to post under duress