[The animated Bill Barr to John Mitchell graphic will run here, since Barr is at least presently threatening, that he possesses the power to bless an executive order from Trump -- one that the Supremes specifically ruled out, just two weeks ago -- to get the racist question. . . reinstated.] In any event, here it is, per Bloomberg, just now -- more as I get it [Update: here is the full three page opinion -- indicating that sanctions may lie]:
. . . .U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan called the government’s request “patently deficient,” adding that the U.S. had provided “no reasons, let alone ’satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel. . . ."
[All of this in the face of a contrary command, in the US Constitution, at Art. I, Section 2, Clause 3. It speaks of counting free persons, not only citizens -- and delegates that duty to the Congress, not the President.]
Ouch. This is going to leave a lasting mark, on all these lawyers' careers. Trump simply wrecks. . . lives. And he could care less. But these lawyers should have bailed on his lies, long ago. Onward, grinning.
नमस्ते
1 comment:
In terms of a "lasting mark" -- consider this blistering six page denial, filed overnight, by the able USDC Judge sitting in Maryland:
". . .Additionally, the Court also expects that the new DOJ team will be aware of and prepared to address potential conflicts between recent developments in this case and positions repeatedly taken before this Court by the withdrawing attorneys. For example, in defending against Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim, Defendants, through counsel, have repeatedly represented to this Court that Secretary Ross, and not President Trump, acted “as the sole decision-maker” as it relates to the addition of a citizenship question to the Census, and that, as a result, any evidence of statements made by candidate, President-elect, or President Trump suggesting discriminatory animus towards immigrant communities was not relevant to the decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. See e.g., ECF No. 54-1 (18-1570) at 8 (arguing that Plaintiffs “have not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that the sole decision-maker here — the Secretary — had a discriminatory purpose in reinstating a citizenship question.”); id. at 25 (“Given that Secretary Ross, as the sole decision-maker, directed reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census . . .); ECF No. 82-1 (18-1570) at 24–25 (“Here there is no evidence that, as the sole decision-maker, Secretary Ross directed reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census because of potential adverse effects on a protected class.”). . .
Defendants must realize that a change in counsel does not create a clean slate for a party to proceed as if prior representations made to the Court were not in fact made. A new DOJ team will need to be prepared to address these, and other, previous representations made by the withdrawing attorneys at the appropriate juncture. . . ."
So -- Trump would be wise to drop it, lest his lawyers be sanctioned for [at least negligent] mis-representations to the court -- and his Commerce Secretary be forced to answer for. . . perjury.
Namaste. . . .
Post a Comment