Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    37860
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Not an employment lawyer, but those that resigned and took severance are no longer at-will employees, but governed by a contract to pay severance for a set term in order to terminate employment. At minimum, there's a promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance problem for the employer. You seem to imply that before resigning for severance, they were at-will employees and could have no expectation of continued employment/salary. The resignation/severance agreement changes all that. As noted in the lawfare article I have posted twice, that's not a clear thing with the federal government as an employer.
  2. More than anyone wanted to know on this. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/will-employees-who-resign-have-a-remedy
  3. So, I think like "weird," this messaging style may work. Call em weird dicks then follow up with some real, pithy criticism. The problem for Democrats is that they have to counter an opponent that is collectively lying its ass off and Democrats probably don't want to have to lie their asses off.
  4. Shit getting real in Westlake, yo.
  5. Yeah, although I was thinking more in terms of criminal prosecutions. I think it's easier to be an incompetent ideologue buffoon in a civil setting than criminal prosecution. But of course USDOJ is really almost primarily a civil institution, like the Texas AG. One thing, though. Historically, the AGs office has been a decent landing place for those without great grades from the lower tier law schools (note that I am not saying they're shitty lawyers, just not Order of the Coif from UT). Therefore, I suspect that the AGs office still has a lot of apolitical civil servants, despite its politics. USDOJ has never been a landing place for anyone. Always competitive and requiring a certain desire to do that kind of work at reduced salaries, because almost everyone at DOJ could be gainfully employed elsewhere at probably double the salary, or more.
  6. Weirdly enough, I know or knew a lawyer in Dallas named Emil. Not pronounced ay-meel, but emmel, like emmett with an L. Crusty sumbitch, not exactly country, but fairly Texan. Guy has a fairly standard DOJ/white collar resume, and, was involved in investigation and prosecution of 1/6 defendants. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trumps-feared-doj-enforcer-secret-investigated-jan-6-rcna191796 While it would take a special kind of asshole to represent Trump, I am a bit shocked that he would be such a complete and compromised toady. What's going to happen here, I suspect, is that they are going to run out all the decent trial lawyers at DOJ and be left with a bunch of incompetent ideologues. Expect the federal conviction rate to plummet over the next four years.
  7. A noisy resignation is all these people can do. They can't really buck the system from within.
  8. You appear to be correct. https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/insulin-cap-medicare-unaffected-by-trump-order-prescription-drug-costs-2025-01-28/
  9. Oh, there are principles and philosophies involved. Bet. Your. Fur. Dominionism. Integralism. Common good constitutionalism under other names. And so on and so forth.
  10. Well, if you really want to get technical about it, 28 USC 2201 and Rule 57, Fed. R. Civ. P. authorize the courts to entertain disputes such as Creative 303, subject to some discretion. They would not authorize hearing something like a presidential assassination, assuming it didn't actually happen.
  11. You must give the drunk/addict/Magat the dignity to suffer the consequences of their own actions.
  12. Yeah, that kind of trauma is crazy-making, for sure. Daddy issues and related things are not a joke. Or entirely a joke.
  13. To the extent it was a declaratory judgment based on acts that highly likely would happen but did not actually happen, it was a hypothetical, yes. Also, something that would help here is if Congress would go ahead and legislate a bunch of things the President, and other high officials, can be prosecuted for. Fat fucking chance, but still.
  14. It's weird. I went to an "elite" public high school. The course offerings today are much broader than they were in my day, going deep into AP, whereas we had Calculus, Chemistry, Biology and English (and added physics on my way out). Of course, AP has many more course offerings than it did back then, too. Nonetheless, my friends who now live in the district say the quality of education has deteriorated from our day. Seems mostly to do with teachers and their tenure. They're not as good as they used to be and don't have the years of experience they had back then.
  15. Also, irrelevant to any congressional proceeding and prima-facie defamatory. But made in a congressional speech, so immunized under Speech and Debate.
  16. Well, I see it somewhat differently. The Commander-in-Chief power is not an exclusive power, it's shared with Congress in the war powers, including issuing letters of reprisal and marque. Thus, it would be only presumptively immune, if that. Sorry Obama. But your evidence point stands and it is the most objectionable and objectively wrong part of the decision.
  17. Hyperbole, much? Ojo is right that immunity for exercise of Article II powers was inevitable. And some going beyond that, as well, given that the President has been given powers not explicitly set out in Article II in other contexts. I think the decision went way too far, particularly in regard to use of evidence, but the central core of it I think any court would have found.
  18. Well, do remember that SCOTUS basically just tells lower courts what to do by affirming, reversing or modifying. It's up to the lower courts to enforce their own orders as modified by SCOTUS. For example, in Brown II, the remedy phase of Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, all cases were reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court to retain jurisdiction over local school districts and authorities "to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases." That was, however, in the days of three-judge district court panels on constitutional questions, so there typically was no intermediate court of appeals to fuck everything up (e.g. 5th Circuit).
  19. Abdullah Hammond? Is that kind of like Federico Klein? Shlomo Carter? Bah, shit, misread it.
  20. Cooze is the preferred nomenclature.
  21. Well, first we have to have SCOTUS rule that these things violate separation of powers, which is not a sure thing. But, I do rather doubt that SCOTUS will tolerate flaunting of its rulings, or even those of the lower courts. That strikes directly at the power of the judiciary. They've been happy to aggrandize the executive at the expense of the legislative, and to a certain extent, their power. But this is direct.
×
×
  • Create New...