Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
"Bu..but I'm pretty. How can you do this to me. Look at my face, it's not ugly. HOW DARE YOU? I'm going to tell Daddy tRump of you! You..you big meanie!!"
I'm not an attorney, but I like reading the various cases and rulings from time to time, and this order is great. It's 18 pages of a federal judge schooling a jumped-up insurance attorney, like this gem on page 2:
Ms. Halligan’s response, in which she was joined by both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice. The Court will not engage in a similar tit-for-tat and will instead analyze the few points that Ms. Halligan offers to justify her continued identification of her position as United States Attorney before the Court.
And this, on page 16:
At the end of the day, Ms. Halligan’s Response asserts that she is free to act in an unlawful capacity, because she disagrees that she does so unlawfully. But that’s not how our legal system works.
Imagine being an attorney and a judge taking you through his elementary school-level "this is how the law works" courthouse tour in his ruling against you personally.
She offered him the usual orange mix of lies and bluster; he threw the book at her, almost literally. Out of 200+ years of material to choose from, he cites Supreme Court justices like Scalia (right-wing hero), Gorsuch (right-wing and currently on the bench), and even threw out her attempted use of the recent Trump v. CASA ruling. I'm no attorney, but even I can see some of the MANY levels of shade the judge threw in here. The ending is just as good:
The Eastern District of Virginia has long enjoyed the service of experienced prosecutors with unquestioned integrity from both political parties serving as the United States Attorney. Despite coming from different political backgrounds and holding very different ideological views, they all shared an unwavering commitment to the Rule of Law, putting the interests of the citizens of the District before their own personal ambitions, as true public servants do. Unfortunately, it appears that this ethos has come to an end. A district judge acting at the direction of the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit has ruled on behalf of the district judges of this District that Ms. Halligan was invalidly appointed as the United States Attorney. No matter all of her machinations, Ms. Halligan has no legal basis to represent to this Court that she holds the position. And any such representation going forward can only be described as a false statement made in direct defiance of valid court orders. In short, this charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end. (emphases mine)
In the meantime, the judge has ordered the title "Unites States Attorney" stricken from all documents filed in the case she currently has before him, barred her from representing herself as US Attorney on anything that comes through his court until she has a valid legal appointment, and if she continues past midnight tonight to falsely represent herself as US Attorney, he will pursue disciplinary action not just against her, but also any other signatories to anything she files that way.
It's a good read. If you're not familiar with legalese, just skip the references and words in Latin and concentrate on the text, where the judge speaks for himself: you'll get the gist of it just fine.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.23.0.pdf
I'm not as intelligent as you, but thank you for this because it increases my appreciation so much more
And once again, there are no consequences for blatantly breaking the law. How much more evidence do you need that the rule of law is over for you mercans.
Hadn't she already been ordered to stop on multiple occasions? I know if I repeatedly ignored a court order I'd have a cell with my name on it in short order.
I'd have a cell with my name on it
Much be rich to be sent to one of those fancy jails with nameplates on the cells 😛
And if she persists, throw her in jail for contempt.
She has already persisted. Now is the time for jail.
Yes! Judges have to stop acting like we’re in the old days when people just followed a judge’s orders. We’re now in the “Who gonna make me?” era.
U.S. District Judge David Novak issued an order that bars "Ms. Halligan from representing herself as the United States Attorney in any pleading or otherwise before this Court until such time as she may lawfully hold the office either by Senate confirmation or appointment by this Court... should either occur."
Snap
"I didn't know I couldn't do that!"