How Cannon ditched the Nixon case to dismiss Trump's documents case

msnbc ^ | 07/15/2024 | Jordan Rubin

[ChicagoConservative27]

In 1974, the Supreme Court seemingly approved a special prosecutor’s authority in then-President Richard Nixon’s case over the Watergate tapes subpoena. But in dismissing the classified documents case against Donald Trump on Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon rejected language from that Supreme Court ruling to find that Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel against the former president.

How could she have done so?

Putting aside for a moment that she may be reversed on appeal, the answer lies in something called dicta, meaning language in an opinion that isn’t necessary to the ruling. Cannon deemed the language at issue from the Nixon case to be that sort of statement that isn’t binding precedent.

[ChicagoConservative27]

They will never let Nixon RIP.

[Jim W N]

How could she have done so?

Simple. If the feds including the Supreme Court have no sound constitutional basis for their acts or decisions, then the act or decision should be nullified, rejected, and overturned.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

"In 1974, the Supreme Court seemingly approved a special prosecutor’s authority...Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel against the former president."

Words have meaning.

[Moorings]

MSDNC is not a real news organization. Let’s repeat that often.

[Savage Rider]

Great analysis of Cannon’s thinking on this issue.

[Political Junkie Too]

And the laws passed after Watergate for special prosecutors have since been expired, so comparisons back to it are moot.

-PJ

[ALPAPilot]

Nixon appointed Jaworski at the Senate’s insistence. Not so here.

[existentially_kuffer]

2nd that! Pass letting my eyes reading the article

[Jim Noble]

I’m glad the Nixon case is being brought up, because the 1973 Court produced many wrong decisions and bad ideas, this was one of them.

Article II starts, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”. This does not make the President a “dictator”, since he is subject to impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.

But it DOES make him the boss of the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security.

There is no “independent” DOJ. The AG is not the nation’s “chief law enforcement officer”, the President is.

Blinded by hatred of Nixon, but especially by hatred of the normal Americans who gave him a huge landslide less than a year before, the Supreme Court overturned the vesting clause of Article II and opened the door to lawfare to obstruct proper functioning of the government.

The President is not a dictator, and he is not “above the law”. But this does not mean that a Congress unwilling to confront a popular President directly can take control of parts of the Executive Branch and use them to obstruct and limit the powers of a President they hate but fear to face down.

“Watergate” was, Constitutionally, a disaster. Judge Cannon’s ruling was perfect. I’m sure it will be stayed at the Circuit level, but hopefully will be upheld at the end of the day by a Court that rules, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”.

[rx]

If Smith's contention of the principle that dicta would be binding on any court were endorsed, the legal system would truly be thrown upside down until such decision would be struck down, as it opposes important precedent in (probably) hundreds of thousands of cases, potentially changing their conclusions.

SCOTUS members are aware of what dissenting and confirming non-majority holding statements have been made, knowing that every contention which is not a holding is dictum, therefore not binding to anyone, and not worth fighting further about, because it can do little more than illuminate what a justice might have thought relative to the matter.

Although Clarence Thomas gave verbal support for the idea that SC Smith was not legitimate--as the Meese amicus curiae brief exposed, no judge could bindingly cite Thomas' comments for any decision made by that judge.

Smith is a total legal ass, as so many of his unique, unsupported and extreme legal gyrations reflect.

OK, full disclosure: IANAL, but I've paid them easily into the seven digits.

[rfp1234]

The 1973-1974 SCOTUS got a lot of things wrong. Their decisions have been rightly overturned by a SCOTUS that actually follows the Constitution (and that’s why Slow Joe wants to hobble them).

[John S Mosby]

The Special Prosecutor Law expired in 1999. The Democrats put in the Special Counsel Law to replace it because it would require — ANY attorney appointed Special Counsel to be approved for the position (a layer of political protection insisted on by the democrat sponsors of it). It’s not OK for a US Attorney to just be... put in. That person has to be approved as Special Counsel for all the political rules the dems applied.

Only— they didn’t apply them to Jack Smith—no, Garland appointed him and IGNORED the Law. So— Judge Cannon throws out the “counsel” and if this non counsel tries to appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals— will be denied, for the same reasons. Somehow crazed Commie Libs don’t get this- and that the rules don’t apply to them. Lousy attorneys in actual fact.

[John S Mosby]

Why is it NOT a binding precedent? Because the Special Counsel Law is not the Special Prosecutor’s Law that expired in 1999— at the democrat’s insistence btw. Touche’ you bozo demos— this is your own petard you are soooo smug.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Yep.
Which Supreme has oversight for the 11th-C?

[John S Mosby]

Clarence Thomas. Yes, as his coverage for SCOTUS includes AL, GA and FL— which is what the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals covers as well.

[jjotto]

Justice Thomas, whose previous opinion invited Judge Cannon to question Smith’s appointment.

[murron]

Wasn’t that the court that gave us Roe v Wade?

[rfp1234]

Yup.