Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (1471773)	7/23/2024 3:51:15 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577194

Bill, Judge Cannon analyzes at length the relevant paragraph in US v. Nixon and *rightly* concludes it non-binding dictum. Arbitrarily is more like it. The paragraph should NOT be declared "non-binding dictum" because it directly dealt with the special prosecutor in U.S. vs. Nixon, Leon Jaworski, and his subpoena of the Nixon tapes from the White House. The issue was not litigated at all in US v. Nixon, and the dicta in question is *vague* and not intended as a prescription for appointments. Dicta are common in court rulings and do not establish precedents. Only Clarence Thomas declared it "vague." That was an opinion that no other Supreme Court justice joined in. It can be argued that Thomas came up with that opinion all on his own just to provide Cannon with cover for throwing out the case. Nobody knows what the appeals court or supreme court will ultimately decide. ... Does that eliminate the evidence? Of course not. But if they're going to prosecute an Ex President, *they better do it by the book.* That's a very nebulous statement. The practice of law is all about interpretations. Judges have the power to interpret and reinterpret the law as the language allows. Judge Cannon, with the support of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, injects what could arguably be an overly strict requirement for the appointment of a special prosecutor, because you know, THAT'S what matters more. Not the quality of the evidence, not justice for someone who blatantly violates information security for the benefit of his own ego, and certainly not the equal application of the law. Try explaining to the average layman why Jack Teixeira, the Call of Duty noob, can't get his case dismissed because the prosecutor wasn't appointed to the satisfaction of the judge. Tenchusatsu