TwiceHorn

Get a front row bulkhead seat. It's really no worse than any other domestic airline these days.

That's a weird prediction. The new indictment doesn't bring any new charges, it's just tailored to avoid problems with the immunity ruling. If it's not a weird prediction, it's at least one that could have been made when the original indictment was filed.

And I'll submit that it's always been Calvinball. Typically a much more restrained form of the game, but Calvinball nonetheless.

That's not what I said. The AG authorizing statutes are something of a mess, amended multiple times, recodified, etc.. upon which judicial minds may differ. If this issue had been raised by Hunter Biden, I'd still be worried a bit. A note, I have heard others mention that other courts have rejected attacks on the validity of the special counsel appointment. The US's brief doesn't mention any of those as supporting authority. Maybe because district court opinions that have little value, or other courts of appeal, which might also have little value in the 11th. Or maybe because they just agreed that US v. Nixon disposed of the issue. It comes damn close. Also, I'm not sure this specific attack was raised anywhere else. The others tried to argue that a special counsel was not an inferior officer and therefore had to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Very sharp. These guys know what's up. Still, I'm worried about the validity of special counsel appointments. I'd be less so without this SCOTUS, but still worried.

The indictment is 9 pages shorter than the original, so it probably reduces mention of anything that could be considered an official act or core constitutional responsibility. The ABC article does a pretty good summary. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-charged-superseding-indictment-federal-election-subversion/story?id=113193224 Notably: While the original indictment mentions the Justice Department on over 30 occasions, the new indictment makes no mention of the DOJ. More importantly, I think, behind the scenes, the evidence presented to the grand jury to secure the indictment avoided anything (well not anything but more things) that could be considered official acts or core constitutional responsibilities. And, I'm sure this is a different grand jury, so there's no "taint" (or grundle or gooch) of the prior possibly inadmissible evidence.

To the extent that high-standing in a law school class indicates "smarts," sometimes, if not often, it is of something of a savant variety. And, as you note, her lack of trial experience and sort of egghead bent tends to mean she "makes a federal case" out of, well, federal cases.

That's not unreasonable, I don't think, assuming that last is the plumber's negligence. People are just stupid enough to sue a pipe inspector when the inspector finds fucked up pipe.

See, I don't think it requires great brilliance to draft with clarity. I write and screw around with patent claims on a daily basis. Verbal descriptions of physical objects and processes that require some degree of clarity. I'm not some genius drafter, and even if I am, a plethora of chuckleheads write patent claims that get the job done every day.

That's a fair point. But as a lawyer that deals with relatively modern statutes on the reg, TItles 15, 17, and 35, they are much better drafted than older things. One of mulitple flaws of Congress, both todays and those of yesteryear, is that they seem to refuse to a) draft with clarity and b) fix clarity issues when the courts find them. So weirdly worded statutes grind my gears. And these are pretty oddly worded. And, when you have that, regardless of the political orientation of the interpreting court, you can get bad results. And, it's not devil's advocacy. It's acknowledgement that there can be an actual dispute here, even before you get to what you think the court will do with that dispute. The best thing in the government's favor here is the opinion in US v. Nixon. It is clearly not dicta, however it apparently was agreed by the parties that the AG had the authority to appoint Jaworski and there's zero interpretation of the statutes in question. The "history" of accepted special counsels doesn't help me much. That's how we got Breuen.

Man, Axios is usually better than that, as far as baity headlines. What she really means, according to the article, is that she would support the "border bill" that Trump killed, which does include wall building.

You can read opinions and briefs for yourself, dispense with your desire for a certain outcome, and acknowledge that there can be a dispute here.

Well, I found the opinion. The issue isn't so much the statutory authority to regulate competition (that exists), but the statutory authority to make substantive rules, as opposed to bringing administrative and judicial actions for enforcement of statutory laws (congress-enacted). According to the opinion, of which I am still skeptical, the FTC admitted, not legally and not in binding way, that it didn't have such rulemaking authority until 1978. I'm not sure I believe that, as I know they have issued rules or guidelines concerning antitrust aspects of IP https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1049793/ip_guidelines_2017.pdf But maybe those aren't substantive rules. And they are issued with the DOJ.

Well according to the Degree Verification link, he did take a class or two in 2004, and maybe previously. SWINDELL, FOREST G.first semester Fall 1983 last semester Fall 2004 However, I know from personal experience that that last could mean nothing more than enrolled. After graduating law school, I stayed in Austin to take the bar. I enrolled for one summer class to get my Student ID validated so I could work out at Rec Sports. I dropped it after getting my ID renewed. Some weeks later, I got some kind of communication from the Registrar that my drop was ineffective because, as the only class I was enrolled in, I had to withdraw from the University. That was weird. And Degrees shows my last semester as the Summer, rather than Spring. /csb

In fairness, when you start having to talk about participles and verb tenses in a statutory construction case, it tends to mean Congress has been a bit less than crystal clear in defining the powers it granted to the Attorney General. If you remove the desired result -- Congress gave the AG power to appoint special counsel -- there's quite a bit of wiggle room here.

Minor point of order, the case was appealed a little over a month ago, in July. This is the government/appellant's brief. Trump's is due in 30 days. This is an expedited appeal and I would expect oral argument within 30 days or so of Trump's brief and a decision a couple of weeks thereafter, so probably October.

Seriously, though, recommending an attorney is a hazardous business. Best way to go about it probably is through people you know who have had some experience. Which is something I suppose you are trying to do here.

Not to mention sounds like all those old dust farts are on Medicare.

The stupid need to feel stupid and inferior again.

Bullshit. She fucked up, It was major questions she was after. §45. Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission (a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. (2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. (3) This subsection shall not apply to unfair methods of competition involving commerce with foreign nations (other than import commerce) unless— (A) such methods of competition have a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect— (i) on commerce which is not commerce with foreign nations, or on import commerce with foreign nations; or (ii) on export commerce with foreign nations, of a person engaged in such commerce in the United States; and

Man, back in the 80s, "club soccer" was a thing, for both boys and girls. And, yes, occasionally, a player would forego the HS team for club pursuits. So it was already heading that way.

I think "travel ball" and the increasing monomaniacal focus on a single sport is contributing to the dumbassedness of a lot of baseball players. I have a friend, close to my age, so old, that was a pretty competitive tennis player in HS and took a scholarship to MIchigan. But he observed that tennis players at that level were just not fun people to be around. Even back then, their lives were full of private coaching, tournament travel and so on an so forth to where they were kind of nuts and psychos. And that's even compared to just being a D1 athlete, which Lord knows is all-consuming. He quit playing tennis except for fun. I have heard similar things from other tennis players my age. And, it seems more and more sports are heading in that same direction. And, of course, it takes a good bit of money to do that, so there are probably accompanying issues of entitlement, etc. Of course, none of this applies to Swindell, also my age, because there wasn't that much extra shit involved in baseball back then, BBI and/or Legion and your HS team.

I'm getting old, and things in the past seem more recent than they are, but it didn't seem like Japorky should have a college-age kid. He's 37, so it's kind of a near thing.

Finally found the opinion, here.. https://www.kywd.uscourts.gov/sites/kywd/files/USA v. Jaynes Memorandum Opinion and Order.pdf It's a pretty nuanced thing. Nonetheless, it does appear that it is something of a new question, so there do seem to be grounds for a solid appeal.

No idea, but I saw this. https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/farmington-high-school-grad-tells-a-story-of-forgiveness/