Posted on 12/20/2023 6:52:58 PM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
When I review divided appellate-court decisions, I almost always read the dissenting opinions first. The habit formed back when I was a young law student and lawyer—and Federalist Society member—in the late 1980s, when I would pore (and, I confess, usually coo) over Justice Antonin Scalia’s latest dissents.
I came to adopt the practice not just for newsworthy rulings that I disagreed with, but for decisions I agreed with, including even obscure cases in the areas of business law I practiced. Dissents are generally shorter, and almost always more fun to read, than majority opinions; judges usually feel freer to express themselves when writing separately. But dissents are also intellectually useful: If there’s a weakness in the majority’s argument, an able judge will expose it, sometimes brutally, and she may make you change your mind, or at least be less dismissive of her position, even when you disagree. Give me a pile of Justice Elena Kagan’s dissents to read anytime—I love them even when she’s wrong, as I think she often is. You can learn a lot from dissents. Last night, I reviewed the three separate dissents in Anderson v. Griswold, the landmark 4–3 Colorado Supreme Court case holding that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Donald Trump from ever serving again as president of the United States. ......
But last night changed my mind. Not because of anything the Colorado Supreme Court majority said. The three dissents were what convinced me the majority was right.
The dissents were gobsmacking—for their weakness. They did not want for legal craftsmanship, but they did lack any semblance of a convincing argument.
For starters, none of the dissents challenged the district court’s factual finding that Trump had engaged in an insurrection.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
That Trump was never charged nor found guilty of "insurrection" does not seem to matter here.
This is that fat sack of sour vomit that is (or was) married to Kellyanne Conway.
But of course he’d write a nonsensical trump hating screed like this one. And for Atlantic of course.
Sounds like the gay rantings of a pedophile.
these people live in lie hole land.
Because it wasn’t FACTUAL to begin with.
It’s subjective opinion at best.
I think this is kellyanne Conway’s husband. He is still gay.
lol. It's the former Mr. Kellyanne Conway.
George Conway?
That guy never told the truth in his life.
Yeah, I left out “fat”....
George Conway, like Chris Christie, is a disappointed office seeker. It’s amazing what an ass he has made of himself after losing the Solicitor General job to Noel Francisco.
Conway's prose betrays some of the warning signs of dicklessness--a tragic flaw in a man's brain.
He has a mind?
Indeed, not one of the J6 defendants has been charged with insurrection, either. To me, this is where the entire majority decision falls into dust.
This fool is completely unaware that half the country does not believe Trump fostered an insurrection. He's surely never looked into it himself. It's just an agreed upon fact. Like anthropogenic global warming.
That’s right. The fact that George Conway is always screaming about Donald Trump tells me George has done nefarious deeds.
Good gravy, this goober still exists?
I think it means he has an extreme man crush on Trump, and this is his way of expressing his love.
“That Trump was never charged nor found guilty of “insurrection” does not seem to matter here.”
What is up for debate is whether or not the events of January 6 constituted an ‘insurrection’. Democrats apparently believe in their heart of hearts that it was and that somehow President Trump was a part of it. They are comparing an hours-long disruption of Congress to the four-year bloodshed of the Civil War. But then, they believe that men can give birth.
But the 14th Amendment doesn’t ban anyone from seeking office so banning Trump’s name from the primary makes no sense. Further, should he win the nomination, while his name might be on the ballot in the general election, in fact voters will be voting for Electors pledged to vote for Trump, not Trump himself.
Should Trump win in ‘24 I foresee this 14th Amendment nonsense to continue to try to keep him from taking office. A good reason to make sure that the House remains in Republican control.
George Conway. That’s a big surprise.
In the case of Donald Trump, I am more and more reminded what an old friend once told me. He had been an Albanian communist partisan in WW2. Enver Hoxha had been his school teacher in the city of Korçë. After the war, my friend was in charge of trying the cases of people accused of collaborating with the Germans and the Italians — AKA fascists. He endeavored to have fair trials and was acquitting people if the evidence of their alleged crime was not convincing. The Communists asked him about this. He said those people acquitted were not guilty, based on evidence. The Communists told him, “No, they are all guilty, and perhaps you are a fascist too.” Seeing the writing on the wall, he escaped to Greece, took refuge in a church, became an Orthodox Christian, and moved to the United States where he made a good life for himself.
I wish he were still around so I could ask him what he thought of the case of Donald Trump.
democrats are the enemy of the united states and its citizens
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.