+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Americanbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Kent Rowald Memorial Quad (/forum-660.html)
+------ Thread: Ketanji Brown Jackson - Judicial record questions (/thread-943051.html)
Ketanji Brown Jackson - Judicial record questions - Hambone10 - 02-25-2022 01:18 PM
From a Chronicle opinion article on 'significant' rulings of hers:
https://www.chron.com/politics/article/SC-nominee-Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-opinions-16947532.php
I'd like to hear the opinions of especially the legal minds on here.
Presidential power argument doesn't really interest me. I don't know enough about the precedence being argued and it seems its somewhat gray anyway... No, Presidents are not kings, but if they have immunity themselves (and it seems that they do in some ways) it seems an end-around to ask their key advisors what they said.
On Immigration, I find this troubling. Basically it means if you are here illegally and important to your family, we can't deport you. Well, isn't EVERYONE by some measure 'important'? Isn't a guy who makes his money as a drug dealer but provides for his family, important to that family? We still put him in jail, right?
They're here illegally. They broke the law to get here. If we want to solve the problem, it seems we need to catch them before they've been here for two years and the same people who support her position here also are the ones who don't support our ability to catch them once they're here.
She was over-ruled by the rest of the court, which is also a bit of a flag to me.
Unions - it seems this was a rule to move from 'minimal impact' to 'significant impact'. I can't speak to this. her other position was about allowing government employees to unionize. I'm against this because they already have significant advantages over private sector employees... and if your government can strike, the people really have no recourse.... because they are the consumers... but they can't easily take their business elsewhere like in most situations.
Any other thoughts from (any of) you guys would be appreciated
RE: Ketanji Brown Jackson - Judicial record questions - Owl 69/70/75 - 02-25-2022 01:34 PM
Pretty much standard hard-left socialist/communist/fascist (3 peas in the same pod) "progressive" fare. No news here, unless you were expecting a "moderate."
My biggest problem (aside from the expected political lean) is that she is just another product of the Harvard/Yale and 1st/2nd/3rd/DC Circuit echo chamber. I would have opposed a Stanford graduate who sat on the 9th Circuit bench and held the same views, but not quite as strongly.
RE: Ketanji Brown Jackson - Judicial record questions - OptimisticOwl - 02-26-2022 10:01 AM
(02-25-2022 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: but if they have immunity themselves (and it seems that they do in some ways) it seems an end-around to ask their key advisors what they said.
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me this is like saying there is attorney-client privilege with a lawyer but not his staff. Is that the case? Do we need to send the staff out of the room before talking to our lawyers?
RE: Ketanji Brown Jackson - Judicial record questions - Tomball Owl - 02-26-2022 01:25 PM
(02-26-2022 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(02-25-2022 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: but if they have immunity themselves (and it seems that they do in some ways) it seems an end-around to ask their key advisors what they said.
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me this is like saying there is attorney-client privilege with a lawyer but not his staff. Is that the case? Do we need to send the staff out of the room before talking to our lawyers?
Good question. I'd like to hear from the resident Doctors of Jurisprudence, preferably not the ones who recently stayed at a Holiday Inn.
RE: Ketanji Brown Jackson - Judicial record questions - tanqtonic - 02-26-2022 02:26 PM
(02-26-2022 01:25 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(02-26-2022 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(02-25-2022 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: but if they have immunity themselves (and it seems that they do in some ways) it seems an end-around to ask their key advisors what they said.
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me this is like saying there is attorney-client privilege with a lawyer but not his staff. Is that the case? Do we need to send the staff out of the room before talking to our lawyers?
Good question. I'd like to hear from the resident Doctors of Jurisprudence, preferably not the ones who recently stayed at a Holiday Inn.
In law school we were taught, and the bar questions were asked, on whether someone like McGahn would enjoy Executive Privilege.
The rule is that the EP is strongest at the Executive, and extends to the 'inner circle' --- thus frank conversations and opinions can be brought forward. I would assume that the White House Counsel would fall into this group.
It wont attach to the 2nd undersecretary for hydrogen fuel matters in the Department of Energy, unless directly communicating with the office of the Chief Executive.
Secondly, there is an additional privilege that should attach. The Executive, as executive and not personally, should enjoy an attorney client privilege with the attorney representing the office of the President.
I havent read her ruling. There may be issues that create a waiver. Until I actually read the opinion and see what the basis is, just remember that such an exception or waiver might exist and might be used in her opinion.
But now, I need to search for the gd Motel 6 room key I lost.....