Suchergebnisse

In her address to parliament during the impeachment session, Zurabishvili denied violating the constitution, and stated that the vote would harm Georgia's "European future."

Paul Herrup (University of Pittsburgh - School of Law) & Ronald A. Brand (University of Pittsburgh - School of Law) have posted A Further Look at a Hague Convention on Concurrent Proceedings on SSRN. Here is the abstract: The current...

Kevin McCarthy "announces impeachment proceeding for Biden regime."

From Judge Gerard Neri (N.Y. Onondaga County trial court), decided July 26, in In the Matter of St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center v. B****** V*******: On June 16, 2023, Petitioner St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center … filed an emergency application to retain Respondent B****** V******* … as a patient and provide treatment pursuant to Mental…

alleging the accuser lied in the proceedings can thus go forward, holds the Connecticut Supreme Court

Appeals in the January 6 cases raise serious questions about how broadly the statute should be applied.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute also could affect two charges against Donald Trump.

From Park v. Kim, decided today by the Second Circuit (Judges Barrington Parker, Allison Nathan, and Sarah Merriam); this is the 13th case I've seen in the last year in which AI-hallucinated citations were spotted: We separately address the conduct of Park's counsel, Attorney Jae S. Lee. Lee's reply brief in this case includes a citation…

 I looked back at my post three years ago, the day after Jan 6th.  With so many people revising their views, hey, it was not an insurrection, just a rambunctious group of FBI-led rioters, I thought I would see where I stand now after investigations, trials, and finally the application of the 14th amendment to he who can't be held accountable.Before getting into this, one key difference between learning and bad faith is that while both can cause someone to take a difference stance three years later, the former is about learning new information and revising beliefs, and the latter is about taking whatever is a convenient stance no matter the previous one.  A bit of a subtweet in all of that.Anyhow, looking back, I was the most wrong about the capitol cops.  They were far from complicit, as many paid a huge cost, including the ultimate price, for doing their jobs.  Not much shirking that day.  What we saw initially where cops cleverly misdirecting the insurrectionists away from the vulnerable Senators and Congresspeople.  I am less certain of my second stance--people referred to this as a manifestation of fascism.  I pushed back because I didn't think and I still don't think Trump has a coherent ideology.  Not all racist autocrats are fascists, with fascism having broader implications for how to organize society.  There are enough people around Trump and enough forces in the US who are not just pushing for autocracy and for white supremacy but also reordering institutions to support, yes, the master race and master religion, that it is close enough to count.  To be clear, to me, Trump is still not thinking about putting the nation over individual interests, but rather himself over everything.  The ultimate expression and empowering of narcissism does not make Trump a Nazi.  But he is changing permission structures to allow Nazis to flourish.  So, there is a fascist movement complete, yes, with swatiskas and Nazi flags.  When they tell us who they are, we probably should be believe them (applies to occupiers of Ottawa as well).The third stance got the most heat--that it was not a coup.  Folks were upset because it seemed like I was not taking the event seriously... as if a coup is far more serious than an insurrection.   But I also underestimated how much of a role Trump and his team played in inciting the insurrection--that it was part of a sustained effort, a conspiracy out in the public eye for the most part, to keep Trump in power despite losing the election.  Which made it an autogolpe.  Which, yes, is a kind of a coup--a self-coup--an effort by those in power to usurp the powers of other institutions so they can perpetuate their reign, their regime.  All of the investigations, all of the incriminating stuff Trump has said, has made it clear that he caused the insurrection--it would not have happened without his sustained efforts.  I am sure we will learn more once the trial starts.  But, yes, I will resist using "coup" without modifications because of two key parts of general definition: coups are usually focused on changing who is in power--hence the need for autogolpe or self-coup--and they involve some component of the security services.  In this case, the military was not involved.  It is still not entirely clear whether we dodged literal bullets by not bringing the National Guard in earlier.  But the point remains--the danger, the threat, the violence, the effort to prevent the transfer of power were not coming from the uniformed armed folks.  A significant number of veterans involved in the insurrection is disturbing but do not make it a coup.Folks have and will accuse me of pedantry on this.  I tend to speak loosely and am not a definitions-enforcer, but on this hill, I (along with many folks who study civil-military relations) remain.  Again, it shifts attention in the wrong direction, and it does not mean the event itself was not serious.My post also called for accountability--that folks had to go to trial and to lose their jobs.  We have had a fair amount of that, but the wheels of justice has been grinding too slowly when it comes to Trump and his minions.  There is very much a deadline.... especially as the GOP seeks to game the institutions governing the next election.We should remain outraged--that something unprecedented happened and it was caused by a sore loser who should never have become president in the first place.  But those seeking power didn't care about personal responsibility or values, so they supported a candidate who was so very disqualified then and then proved it through how he governed and then again with his refusal to accept losing.  So, yes, the 14th amendment should be applied to Trump, but will it stick?  Damned if I know.

(Note that the court dealt with a professional licensing board's threat of punishment for such engineers; it doesn't deal with the separate question whether a government body may refuse to accept testimony from an unlicensed expert.)

Former President Donald Trump's year just got even busier. On Tuesday, Trump was indicted by special counsel Jack Smith on four counts: conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, conspiracy to violate people's rights, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and the actual obstruction of an official proceeding. That's on top of two other sets of […]

Yesterday and today, the ICJ heard an application for provisional measures brought by South Africa, in which Israel is accused of the particularly serious crime of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza due to its reactions to the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. This participation in the proceedings, as well as other reasons to be explained below, speak in favor of also declaring an intervention in the proceedings between South Africa and Israel – in this case, however, with the aim of supporting Israel as defendant and countering the South African argumentation.

Why civil society will continue to be critical even if the AfD party ban proceedings are successful.

This article looks at South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice and what will happen during the legal proceedings.

The Fifth Circuit concludes that the violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act can provide grounds for refusing to dismiss the conspiracy charges against Boeing ... in later proceedings.