Dr. Michael N Brette, J.D. Small Cap Equity Advisors

Writing in Truthdig, Bill Blum, sounds the alarm bell under the title “The Supreme Court Is Poised to Rescue Donald Trump.” https://lnkd.in/gve_H8q8 Blum is a Los Angeles lawyer and a former state of California administrative law judge. One would expect a deeper reading and engagement with the oral arguments thus far. What are the justices wrestling with? What are the main questions before the Court, and what are possibly some consequences for whatever rule the justices decide? For Blum, the argument is simple and straightforward: If Trump is granted presidential immunity in Jack Smith’s election subversion case, say goodbye to the rule of law. In “Catastrophizing the Oral Argument in Trump v. U.S.,” Jack Goldsmith, the Learned Hand Professor at Harvard Law School, writes that no, the Justices were not normalizing the president as a crime boss. The oral arguments have set in motion a near-complete meltdown in the media circuit. As are nearly all cases of this magnitude, most people are reacting to extrapolate soundbites rather than reading expert opinions on the case, or better yet, listening to and reading the actual oral arguments while keeping in mind the legal question on the table. Goldsmith notes that “Trump v. United States is the first time the Court has ever faced the question of how criminal law applies to the president. It was thus entirely legitimate for the Court to ask, even on the extreme facts of the Trump case, how the answer to that novel question will impact, and possibly unduly burden, future presidents.” #SupremeCourt #Trump #RuleofLaw

Writing in Truthdig, Bill Blum, sounds the alarm bell under the title “The Supreme Court Is Poised to Rescue Donald Trump.” https://lnkd.in/gve_H8q8 Blum is a Los Angeles lawyer and a former state of California administrative law judge. One would expect a deeper reading and engagement with the oral arguments thus far. What are the justices wrestling with? What are the main questions before the Court, and what are possibly some consequences for whatever rule the justices decide? For Blum, the argument is simple and straightforward: If Trump is granted presidential immunity in Jack Smith’s election subversion case, say goodbye to the rule of law. In “Catastrophizing the Oral Argument in Trump v. U.S.,” Jack Goldsmith, the Learned Hand Professor at Harvard Law School, writes that no, the Justices were not normalizing the president as a crime boss. The oral arguments have set in motion a near-complete meltdown in the media circuit. As are nearly all cases of this magnitude, most people are reacting to extrapolate soundbites rather than reading expert opinions on the case, or better yet, listening to and reading the actual oral arguments while keeping in mind the legal question on the table. Goldsmith notes that “Trump v. United States is the first time the Court has ever faced the question of how criminal law applies to the president. It was thus entirely legitimate for the Court to ask, even on the extreme facts of the Trump case, how the answer to that novel question will impact, and possibly unduly burden, future presidents.” #SupremeCourt #Trump #RuleofLaw

In this special Evening Edition of #thinkingoutloud ... the poisonous political atmosphere that has fed an increasing cycle of violence...some of which includes the use of guns is worthy of examination... 1. Start with the premise that no political violence is justifiable! 2. 45 did incite a group of Citizens to March on the Capital and interfere with the peaceful transfer of Power on 6 January; 3. 45 has urged his Party to not have meaningful legislative dialog with their Democratic Counterparts either in Congress or in State Legislatures on key issues that impact the Public Food...including the Right to Vote (and recognizing the Voting system as providing a peaceful means of holding free elections); and Abortion Rights---and urging onerous restrictions on both Physicians and their female Patients that violate capacity to both render and receive medical treatment! 4. Disagreement...without becoming disagreeable is preferable...Don't You and All so agree?