Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 13:48:57 JST Heidi Li Feldman

   I just wrote a lengthy thread explaining why Judge Aileen Cannon and today’s Republican Party want to pretend that U.S. v. Nixon doesn’t settle the question of the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment as special prosecutor in the federal investigations of Trump’s criminal wrongdoing. This question may yet reach the current U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has disregarded its own precedents so often, it will be interesting to see whether and how it holds that lower courts are to be bound by them. 1/

   • Paul Cantrell repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 13:48:56 JST Heidi Li Feldman

     in reply to

     Judge Aileen Cannon is a district court judge, who is supposed to conduct trials according to established legal rules, including Supreme Court precedent. She is not empowered to decide questions of law however she pleases. When she ignores the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Nixon, she puts herself above the law as surely as Trump has tried to put himself above the law. 3/

   • Embed this notice
     Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 13:48:57 JST Heidi Li Feldman

     in reply to

     I’m no defender of blind obedience to precedent. Sometimes a prior court gets an issue wrong, and a later court should overrule that earlier decision. But for a system of courts to function as legal decisionmakers rather than personal arbiters, only a high court should overrule high court precedent and then only on convincing evidence that the prior decision was wrong. 2/

     Paul Cantrell repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 13:49:44 JST Heidi Li Feldman

     in reply to

     However, the current Supreme Court seems to have no trouble with at least some judges and some presidents casting the law beneath them. The current Supreme Court has been willing to radically change the law on gun control and reproductive freedom, disregarding its own established precedents along the way. It has broadened presidential immunity to grotesque and farcical proportions. 4/

     Paul Cantrell repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 13:49:44 JST Heidi Li Feldman

     in reply to

     No wonder a federal trial court judge like Cannon felt free to ignore established law. She may believe, and be right, that this rogue Supreme Court will be only too happy to be handed a lower court decision that has already ignored existing precedent to insulate Donald Trump from criminal prosecution. 5/5