ST Alpha - "Based on the summary link I posted yesterday, it seemed easy for this one to go either way per conflicting precedence" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 158

In response to "Huh. I was wrong on this one. -- nm" by Marquis de Krusty

Based on the summary link I posted yesterday, it seemed easy for this one to go either way per conflicting precedence

Posted by ty97 Jul 9 '20, 07:24

Choose your own adventure!

Responses:

With my basic understanding of things I thought Vance had a very strong case while the House had a weak one. -- nm - Marquis de Krusty Jul 9, 07:25 8
- The Vance case definitely was stronger based on my layman read. -- nm* - ty97 Jul 9, 07:25 7
  - That was the expectation after the argument but if you think about it it was the opposite, right? - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:26 6
    - Hmmm, interesting. - ty97 Jul 9, 07:28
    - It also means that the next President can be harassed by a state prosecutor in Mississippi trying to win re-election, right? -- nm - spamlet Jul 9, 07:28 4
      - Thanks for tipping our hand, dude. -- nm - GOP Jul 9, 07:34
      - on the other hand, the SCOTUS said unanimously in Clinton v. Jones that a president can be forced to sit for a civil deposition in a civil lawsuit whi - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:30
      - Yup. -- nm - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:29
      - Yeah, this was my immediate thought. Will become a new thing for local DAs of one party to harass the President perhaps -- nm - ty97 Jul 9, 07:29

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.