Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Trump v Anderson (2024)—A Curiosity


Dear Friend, 

One of the curiosities of the recently decided Trump v. Anderson (the ballot-access Trump-related Section-3-of-the-Fourteenth Amendment case) was that the per curiam opinion stated:

Th[e] [Enforcement] Act [of 1870] authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative officefederal or statein violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35 Stat. 1153–1154 [1909], 62 Stat. 992–993 [1948]). 

[601 U.S. 100, 114; slip op. at 10 (emphasis added).]

The problem is that the per curiam opinion asserts that Sections 14 to 16 of the 1870 federal statute were repealed by one or more subsequent federal statutes, but the pages cited for the repealing statute(s) 35 Stat. 115354 (1909) and 62 Stat. 992993 (1948) list scores of statutes in an extensive list and in an extensive table. So the public (including me) does not know which statute(s) repealed Sections 14 to 16. I do not believe any of the Justices law clerks found the reported repealing statute(s)law clerks do not have this level of detailed expertise. I expect it was staff, maybe at the library? Any idea who I can ask?

My query does NOT involve any impending litigation. 

Thank you, 

Seth 

Trump v. Anderson, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 8992072024 U.S. LEXIS 1190144 S. Ct. 662601 U.S. 100 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2024) (per curiam), <https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23>, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>; 

 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Trump v Anderson (2024)—A Curiosity,’ New Reform Club (Oct. 29, 2024, 5:44 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/10/trump-v-anderson-2024a-curiosity.html>; 



Wednesday, October 02, 2024

On Winning Debates

Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook

I remember a trial lawyer roundtable on Court TV in the early days of cable, F. Lee Bailey, Johnnie Cochran, and the flamboyant Gerry Spence. Spence told of his first trial, where he ripped the other side's witnesses up one side and down the other. Total annihilation.


The jury came back against him. Incredulous, Spence got a chance to chat up one of the jurors--I won 17 ways to next Sunday, how on earth could I lose??
The juror replied, Why did you make us hate you? Spence said it was the greatest lesson he ever learned, one they didn't teach in law school.
Vance came in with huge poll negatives, well underwater, the result of months of trashing by the Democrat media slime machine. Job One was not to destroy the avuncular Tim Walz, but to sell himself. Indeed, instead of leaping for Walz's throat, he passed up a gimme and used his first statement to "introduce himself" to the American people.
Although he won conclusively on the issues, his real victory was having Walz eating out of his hand by the end instead of coming off like the monster the Dems had made him out to be. And managed to put the biased "moderators" in their place too, without leaving himself open to the charge of bullying women.
Regardless of who they said "won," the quickie polls had his favorable/unfavorable numbers in the black. The Trump/Vance ticket hardly needed more points for aggressiveness. Had he destroyed Uncle Tim Walz, any debate victory would have been Pyrrhic.