I think they cut corners and made it out of used shipping pallets.
Is it standard in the US for a judge to file a brief with an appellate court to support his own order?
I’ve never seen such a thing. (but I have never practiced in New York)
That sounds like sort of an inverse ponzi scheme, where you keep taking on new lawyers to fight off the lawyers you just stiffed, in a sort of musical leapfrogs game.
If it beggars a bunch of sleazy, low-rent ambulance chasers, I’m all for it!!
Trump DARES judge to take serious action against him in trial. Glenn Kirschner (8:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SedP1vfY3n0
Synopsis?
I really dislike the appellate court judge lifting the gag order.
But you know I really disliked that back in the late 1970’s the ACLU fought for the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, a suburb with a heavily Jewish population. I hated it … but I recognized it was the right action for the ACLU to take.
If we are going to continue to have 1st Amendment rights we’ve got to assure they hold true for the despicable ones among us as well as the good guys.
You nailed it. Thank you.
Not even close. The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, and adherence to the letter of Constitutional principles when those principles are being used to undermine the Constitution is pure folly. Just ask Abraham Lincoln about this.
Yeah, it’s all fun and games and 'murica till some nutbag wound up by right wing bullshit shows up inside your house with a hammer.
(Oh get out of here, that would never happen.)
Regardless of your position on that, I don’t think the two are quite comparable. The argument isn’t that these lawyers think Trump should be allowed to continue threatening the court staff. It’s that they are worried that any decision might be overturned on appeal, and are being extremely cautious.
While I do think that is a valid argument, it is just that—an argument. It’s a valid defense of their actions. And I’m glad @Aspenglow points this out to those who may have missed it.
But I’m not a fan of the chastisement. It’s one thing to tell someone why their assumptions may be incorrect, but another to treat it like it was wrong to dare to have that assumption.
At the end of the day, the judge did have to consider the harm that lifting the gag order could cause. And no one seems to have thought it was a foregone conclusion that it would be lifted pending the appeal.
Courts have issued narrow rulings in the past, which are specifically noted as non-precedent-setting. The BoR says we have these rights, but it is recognized that reality happens on the ground, not on a page, so the legal system affords some play to the text.
Individual-ONE is not an ordinary person, and the MAGAtry are not an ordinary crowd. When he villifies people, it is the literal definition of stochastic terrorism. He is making threats, which is generally regarded as not protected speech.
If 1A is so very infexible that it does not allow flex for this kind of unusual circumstance, it needs to be repealed. Dogmatic defense of you can say whatever the fuck you want and we are hamstrung for recourse is plain wrong, as was set down in the Alex Jones ruling. This is a pretty similar situation.
First, that wasn’t my intent. But if it came off that way, then I apologize to @bobot.
Second, as a poster and not a moderator, I’d prefer to have this discussion in a different thread. I feel like this one is getting sidetracked with this discussion, and I don’t want to be a party to that. So I’ve started a new thread for it, and you can head over there if you wish to continue the discussion.
Well, that didn’t take long.
Is he opening himself up to any more lawsuits by doing this if someone ends up getting hurt? What about defamation suits?
The, uh, mistrial thing? Turns out … not so much:
The judge in former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York on Friday denied defense lawyers’ bid for a mistrial, saying it was based on “irrelevant” and “nonsensical” arguments and evidence.
Thanks to @Ann_Hedonia for what turned out to be a spot-on summation 
Thr author of your link seems to think not:
Notice that alleged idiot Donald Trump had the self-discipline to abide by the gag order when it was in place.
But just because he can doesn’t mean there aren’t still consequences for doing it. He’s not been given immunity for anything he says, right? It’s just that the restrictions placed on him have been lifted.
if he goes to a rally and uses the same coded language he’s been using, that’s been shown to be effective, to suggest James and Engoron should be killed, should he face any charges if someone acts on it? What about if he defames Jones? Engoron might not do anything about it, but she’d have a good chance of winning a defamation case against him. At least I assume that’s how it would work.
Can we convict him of idiocy so that no one ever again has to call him an “alleged” idiot?
The order basically said to leave the judge’s staff alone. I guess for Mr. “man, woman, person, camera, tv”, being able to understand the order is a real show of acuity.