Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
That is exactly what I said it was a ruling on a case.
The fact that a bimbo moron justice would editorialize like that only show what a pos she is. She clearly is a biased BITCH ( catch that, Danny).
But I see why it made YOUR leg tingle.
Tee hee hee
btw. the REAL court may not agree with that - is that one of those Circus Court judges - you know, the ones who wear NEVER TRUMP tee shirts to work?
And, that is the words of one judge(?) not the COURTS.
Try again, Gollum.
|
This legal decisions will affect all cases where your
moron king attempts to acts as a king. Why do you think he is appealing it to the Supremes?
The Limits and Implications of the McGahn Case on White House Aide Immunity
https://www.lawfareblog.com/limits-a...-aide-immunity
....This is another reason why administrations should take care not to invite the courts unless absolutely necessary to clarify the law governing these types of issues. By picking a poor case in which to test the national security exception,
Trump has saddled the presidency with a narrow construction that it will have to contend with in other, future cases. And that case is on its way. The administration has chosen to stand its weak ground and appeal the Jackson decision, courting yet another loss but also one that would constitute controlling circuit precedent
.................................................
From the decision Looie.....
“Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings,” added the judge, an Obama appointee.
