CT Blue

I get most of my news from an RSS app, and when I peruse the Unread Items, I often come across an article title that I just can’t believe, until I see that it’s from the Onion, and that I shouldn’t believe it. But, the fact is, that a lot of their articles are, in these dizzying times, initially easy to believe are true. That’s a depressing observation when you think about it, but hardly the Onion’s fault.

Today I read about this brief that the Onion has filed (and this has really happened) with the US Supreme Court – – you know, the Court people used to respect.

The Onion is supporting a case brought by a man that was arrested for operating a parody website making fun of his local police department. He was found not guilty, and he brought an action against the cops for violating his free speech rights, he rather foolishly thinking that free speech applied to him, and not just right wing fanatics. His case was thrown out because the court ruled the cops were entitled to qualified immunity, which should actually be phrased as unqualified immunity, but we must preserve appearances.

Anyway, the Onion’s brief is a masterpiece, howlingly funny but also legally correct, though no doubt the 6 nutjobs on the court will not see it that way.

Here’s a small example:

The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered coverage of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.

,,,

,,, The Onion’s keen, fact-driven reportage has been cited favorably by one or more local courts, as well as Iran and the Chinese state-run media. Along the way, The Onion’s journalists have garnered a sterling repu- tation for accurately forecasting future events. One such coup was The Onion’s scoop revealing that a for-mer president kept nuclear secrets strewn around his beach home’s basement three years before it even happened.

…

Americans can be put in jail for poking fun at the government? This was a surprise to America’s Finest News Source and an uncomfortable learning experience for its editorial team. Indeed, “Ohio Police Officers Arrest, Prosecute Man Who Made Fun of Them on Fa-cebook” might sound like a headline ripped from the front pages of The Onion—albeit one that’s considerably less amusing because its subjects are real. So, when The Onion learned about the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in this case, it became justifiably concerned.

The brief even rightly mocks the Supreme Court. No doubt Elena, Sonia and Ketanji will get a kick out of it (and agree with it).

Well worth reading. Absolutely legally correct. A sure loser.

Anyone who is reading this is probably already aware of the blockbuster brief that the Justice Department just filed in the case against the genius. I’ve read through it, and as has been reported almost everywhere, it makes a strong case for the former guy’s guilt, as well as implicating some of his lawyers in his crimes, or, alternatively, proving beyond doubt that they are among the most incompetent lawyers on the planet. (I’m going with door number one)

The brief was filed in response to a motion Trump filed in an entirely different court, before an entirely different judge, than the judge that issued the search warrant in the first place. It was a clear case of judge shopping, as they were looking for a Trump appointed judge who would rule in Trump’s favor, regardless of the law, and they may have found one, as she has indicated that she is disposed to grant his motion to appoint a special master. It’s unclear if she’ll stick to that position since, as the Justice Department persuasively proves in its brief: 1) it is clear as day that there is no legal basis for such a ruling, and 2) the Justice Department has already reviewed all the documents because Trump delayed seeking the relief that he should have sought the minute after the warrant was served, so the case is somewhat moot.

I haven’t seen much discussion of the fact that the judge has held on to the case rather than refer it back to the court that issued the warrant. I didn’t practice criminal law, but I know for certain that I could never have gotten away with asking one judge to interfere in a case that was pending before another. The likelihood is that I would piss off both judges, particularly the first judge, to whom the second judge would likely refer my motion. It seems to me that Trump’s motion should have been directed to the judge that issued the warrant.

Why hasn’t this judge referred the case to the appropriate court for a decision? That fact alone makes me think that she’s trying to figure out a way to do something for Trump that will, in one way or another, defy pre-existing precedent, though, of course, precedent means nothing to much of the latter day judiciary. Whether she’ll decide to sully her reputation is at present unknown, but remember that virtually nothing she does can affect her lifetime appointment, and, who knows, if DeSantis gets into the White House, he might reward her intellectual dishonesty with a Supreme Court seat.

She is symptomatic of a huge problem that will fester in the courts of this nation for the next 40 years or so, assuming the republic somehow holds on that long. The courts are now well stocked with”originalists” whose definition of “originalism” is: I get to do whatever I want.