Fani Willis
The first news today was that the Georgia judge dropped his decision regarding Fani Willis remaining on the case after evidence arose about a relationship with another prosecutor. She can if she kicks off the other guy.
I do not claim to know much about Georgia law. Nonetheless, this whole this to me came off as a damn f-ing sideshow. What harm to the defense (and, yes, I'll say this if she's a Republican bringing a criminal case against a Democrat) did this all entail? It comes off as a matter of employment ethics that at most can be addressed by the suitable parties there.
We can grant (not that such relationships are somehow novel) she screwed up (take the pun if you want). So what? People mess up. That doesn't change the bottom line. The judge was harsh on her bad judgment, including on the stand in the face of unfair quite personal attacks. Yeah. Okay. Meanwhile, the real criminals continue to be out there.
(ETA: I have read various tweets from Anthony Michael Kreis, who is also out there in many locales talking as an expert on Georgia law. I STILL don't understand why this actually is a problem for the defense.
Multiple people have alleged other prosecutors would not be treated this way. I have seen no one actually showing [except for one case multiple people point out is very little like this] where they have been. AMK in one tweet even notes the value the now removed prosecutor had on the damn case!
Her reputation in the opinion that AMK argues is the best she could have hoped for is tarred repeatedly. For what? I still think the whole thing is bullshit. It is at best something that should have been handled by the appropriate ethics organization.)
Fine. Kick Nathan Wade off the case. Can we now move on? The usual Eeyores are out there focusing not on the bottom line -- pushing forward to prosecute -- but how this all is bad for the Democrats. Why just attack Merrick Garland, after all? Sorry. There is a "collective failure" at hand.
The New York case was due to start at the end of the month. Something came up (the DA blames the Trump side) regarding new documents provided by the federal government (it's unclear what the delay was about).
Now, the DA supports a month's delay so the government can examine the documents. [And, it was granted. Trump's side asked for more.] Not quite the delay I was expecting but I did expect something was quite likely.
We can look at the bright side. Still depressing.
Supreme Court Decisions
The first case involved a tricky matter of a public official blocking someone on his Facebook page. Barrett in a short (under 20 pages) unanimous opinion appeared to handle things crispy in down-to-earth language.
The person has to have public authority to be a spokesperson and purport to have actually used it. The case (and a companion dispute) was sent back to apply the rule. A "looks like state action" approach was rejected.
Barrett has two short opinions now. The justices without an opinion were: Roberts (he might have written the per curiam in the insurrection cases), Thomas, Alito, and Kagan.
Kagan was working on a more divisive application of a sentencing reform act. She wrote for the conservatives (minus Gorsuch) to uphold the government's view. Gorsuch (with the other liberals) wrote a strong dissent. Both opinions were about thirty pages long and dealt with statutory interpretation.
My bottom line in these cases is that disputes often tend to rest on judgments on how to weigh multiple interpretative rules. Gorsuch tends to get self-righteous about how clear things are. This doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong here. I will leave that to the experts, including some criminal reform types that sympathize with the dissent. It just means his schtick annoys me.
Meanwhile, in Friday order news, the solicitor general was given some argument time in upcoming abortion pill cases.
Also, the Court refused to get involved in a dispute over drag shows at a Texas University. Chris Geidner is on the case in a dispute worthy of more than bare denial.
Other News
One person I generally respect argued that the mother was unfairly targeted in a controversial firearm prosecution. She was prosecuted first. But, while most are no longer thinking about the case, the father was convicted on the same charges.
Among the things discussed in that Sotomayor/Barrett event I referenced the other day is the use of video at the Supreme Court. Sotomayor suggested C-SPAN coverage of Congress aided and abetted divisive partisanship. Oy. Video is used for diverse courts here and abroad. Stop with the faux history.
An award named for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, particularly to honor women, is being given to various conservatives that she probably would find distasteful (e.g., Elon Musk). Multiple people pushed back. No, not that Amanda Tyler.
I'm sure there is more, but that is enough for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!