Just to cut to the chase. Then there’s the short analysis:Atty Richard Bernstein, who wrote amicus brief for @judgeluttig & other former Republican high officials, comments: "It reminds one of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass: "Jam tomorrow and jam yesterday--but never jam today."
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) February 5, 2024
/2
I would consider this argument tantamount to an acknowledgment that the former president and his lawyers have all but concluded that their arguments have become so weakened by the briefing of respondents and their supporting amici
— @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) February 5, 2024
What else could possibly explain this eleventh-hour, Hail Mary argument that not even the Supreme Court of the United States can ever decide whether the former president is disqualified from the presidency. Not now. Not ever.
— @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) February 5, 2024
So, no court or litigant can declare that President Trump is “presently” disqualified from holding office without assuming or predicting that Congress will refuse to lift any section 3 disability that might apply.
— @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) February 5, 2024
Not to say the Roberts Court won’t find a way to bail Trump out, but even Thomas (well, Alito, surely) would be embarrassed by this argument. It’s a variation on the “POTUS can order an illegal assassination and not be criminally liable without impeachment and conviction” immunity argument. Meaning it really deserves less consideration than Judge Luttig gives it, it so bad on its face (and deeper analysis doesn’t reveal anything beneath the threadbare exterior).for a waiver — especially when Congress is mostly likely to grant a waiver after the candidate has been elected, as its members will face political pressures to respect the will of the voters and allow the president-elect to take office.”
— @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) February 5, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment