Search for: "In the Matter of Anderson"
Results 81 - 100
of 3,056
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2024, 10:01 am
Anderson captivated the nation as the justices considered the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 9:20 am
Anderson.] [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 1:47 pm
As a practical matter, the latter turns Section 3 into a dead letter—not just for insurrectionist presidents, but for everyone else. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
Our answer is that the facts matter. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:57 am
If adopted in its current form, the proposed treaty would increase the risk that good faith security researchers could face prosecution, even when our goal is to enhance technological safety and educate the public on cybersecurity matters. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:19 am
Anderson litigation, both the Colorado District and the Colorado Supreme Court found Section Three to be justiciable and Trump has not pressed a political question argument in his Supreme Court merits briefs. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
As I explained in one of my earlier posts, several or all of the Justices might be inclined to decide the case on some ground that doesn’t require the Court to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible to be President, if such an “off-ramp” solution is legally available. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am
He imputes – sometimes reasonably, as an historical matter – certain purposes to certain drafters of Section Three. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 8:15 am
Anderson. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 5:05 am
It is wrong as a matter of the text, history, and structure of Section Three. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 7:55 pm
Anderson, and many of the amici, (mis)characterize Colorado as having acted to "enforce" Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that is not, in fact, what Colorado is doing (or would be doing, anyway, if it removed Donald Trump's name from the primary election ballot, which it hasn't done and likely won't ever do).In the course of that post, I wrote that a state lacks any power to actually enforce Section 3, or any other federal qualification for office, for that… [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 6:29 pm
Part II of Donald Trump’s brief argues that the factual predicate for the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Trump’s name from the primary ballot was absent because Trump did not “engage in” an insurrection against the United States on January 6, 2021.[1] [Apologies in advance about all the footnotes, but I didn't want to clutter the text with too many peripheral matters.]The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump’s words on… [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 1:01 pm
Anderson have pivoted to a new strategy. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 11:30 am
Certainly such matters cannot matter to judges. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
In one of my previous posts, I explained why it's unlikely that a majority of the Justices will hold that the Fourteenth Amendment bars Donald Trump from holding federal office. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 2:56 pm
Potential liability years downstream if that doesn’t matter. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 6:51 am
Anderson (2024): “In our democracy, we must trust the people, not unelected judges, to choose our leaders. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 2:30 am
Anderson case. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 1:35 pm
Ansbacher Law serves all of Florida in matters concerning real estate, development, insurance and commercial disputes. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 7:10 am
If he did, all or almost all electors “pledged” to him would probably cast their votes for him in December, no matter what the Court has said about his eligibility. [read post]
