And at Merde-a-Lardo, a squeal only bats and certain dogs can hear rings out. https://t.co/HsXnVKB7Ma
— ✂️Special Master𝙏𝘦𝘯𝘨𝙧𝘢𝙞𝘯 Redacted 🇺🇦 (@Tengrain) September 21, 2022
Snip!
Recent Comments
roket on Come-On Aileen, Loose Cannon I… Cheryl on Secret Serice, U-Up? Jimmy T on Come-On Aileen, Loose Cannon I… roket on Secret Serice, U-Up? Richard Portman on Love, Republican Style Snip!
Snip!
Snip!
Snip!
Snip!
Electoral Vote
Mock Paper Scissors 
“Waiter! Bring me a big bowl full of ketchup! The good stuff, not that trump brand swill. It eats the paint off the walls.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I read the 11th Cir decision or at least skimmed it, and I saw a number of commentaries on it online. Initially, I was disappointed that it didn’t blast Cannon (did you see what I did there?) with some strong, semi-personal comments on just how ignorant and contrary to law her decision was. But actually, it was better not “going there.”
It was didactic in stating the basics of the security classification system and the critical importance of the Executive Branch’s role in safeguarding the Nation using it as a tool. In this sense, it was like a basic legal primer for a judge born overseas who maybe hadn’t absorbed U.S. social and legal norms properly (despite being a member of the bar and all that).
But what really stung was the 11th Circuit’s complete razing of Cannon’s reasoning in issuing her orders.
Let me put it this way. There was not a single element in Cannon’s rationale for ruling in Trump’s favor that the 11th Circuit sustained. Not one.
Every single factor that she weighed in Trump’s favor, she got wrong, the 11th Circuit said. Every single one. Usually, when there is a reversal, it’s because the lower court got the out of four elements right, but the fourth one was wrong and a reversible error. Here, I think it’s fair to say that the 11th Circuit found that she got everything wrong of substance wrong, and I mean everything.
She made a dog’s breakfast out of the most important case she will ever handle. I don’t think her reputation will ever recover from it. And that’s a good thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CORRECTION: “Usually, when there is a reversal, it’s because the lower court got, say, three out of four elements right, but the fourth one was wrong and a reversible error.”
LikeLike
I read it from front to back, Redhand, and delighted in every syllable of it. If anyone wants a quick lesson in verbal knifing, read the 5 footnotes.
Rgds,
TG
LikeLike
I’ll have to check those out! Yes, that’s usually where the knives get unsheathed.
I once got one of those in an appellate decision directed to an immigration judge in response to an argument I made on behalf of two asylum clients (on the third appeal, mind you) in which they said they didn’t have to consider my argument that the imm. judge needed to be replaced on violation of due process grounds.
They said that they were confident that, with the careful instructions on remand that they had given in their decision, it wouldn’t be necessary to address the due process issue “at this time.”
BURN, BABY, BURN!!!!!
LikeLike