Thanks for the update. I knew Leo was working on something, but I didn't know what. The wheels of justice grind too slowly for me. We must get to the discovery phase before the 2010 elections.
~~PING!
The analysis certainly seemed persuasive, but just as an added check, we called up Michael Small, a lawyer at Akin Gump in Los Angeles who last year taught a course at UCLA law on separation of powers.
Small explained that he “wasn’t surprised in the least” by the opinion.
“Any judge would have ruled this way,” he said. “I could imagine a judge enjoining a specific ruling issued by a president viewed as illegitimate, but not one ousting the president.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And how is that Constitutionally/chronilogically feasible?? How can a president be “viewed as illegitimate” and NOT already be president at that occurrence ???