Neal Katyal: "The DOJ brief criticizing the Special Master ruling is a work of art."

[mahatmakanejeeves]

NotAcceptingHorsesHat Retweeted

The DOJ brief criticizing the Special Master ruling is a work of art. I’ve read some great DOJ briefs but this is among the best. Garland brought the A team

(Now admittedly, it was an easy target. But still, just in tone & sophistication &clarity & law)

courtlistener.com
Motion to Stay – #69 in Trump v. United States (S.D. Fla., 9:22-cv-81294) – CourtListener.com
MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal by United States Of America. Responses due by 9/22/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Gonzalez, Juan) (Entered: 09/08/2022)

Link to tweet

[malaise]

1. Heard him on Lawrence last night

Lock him up!

[gab13by13]

2. I kinda like Neal

Why lock him up?

[malaise]

4. Slobby not Neal

😀😀

[ffr]

3. Yes, it absolutely is. And no, she will not consider anything other than a result that favors Trump

the man who helped install her in her position of power over other people's lives.

[modrepub]

5. To Be Fair To The Judge

from what I've read, she has a very strong anti-government streak. So her ruling, from her point of view, makes sense (to her and other anti-government nuts).

Do you think the Judge and other in-government anti-government types get the irony of their situation? I also wonder if the Judge's anti-government stance applies to all parties involved in government or just the ones that don't begin with the letter "R"? The Federalist Society have some strange birds.

[dlk]

7. Yet, she receives a government paycheck...

How irrational is that?

[The Jungle 1]

10. A judge who is anti-government?

Let me get this straight you do not support our government but your job is to sit in judgement over American citizens.
WTF

[niyad]

13. The same to be said for "libertarian" politicians.

[The Jungle 1]

15. Yup

[stopdiggin]

8. there's plenty of anit-government sentiment on the left

But you ask a good question about whether that actually extends to lefties holding jobs in the government. Or, particularly, on the bench.

[Ford_Prefect]

9. A firm belief in magical thinking is no qualification for any bench or for regulating public office.

The Federalist Society has for the last 40 years advocated a radical view of legal and political governance in America. They have culled and selected those most susceptible to a particular form of hierarchy based on the 18th century idea that those with the most gold are entitled to make any rule that suits them, regardless of Constitutional law or previous judicial or congressional interpretation.

The Federalists have groomed countless students, judges, and politicians on all levels towards converting the United States into a white dominated, neo-Christian, Theocracy. Rather as Bin Laden cultivated and steered al-Qaeda towards an ISIS like radical theocracy.

Federalist Society groomed judges and politicians are every bit as dangerous to our democracy as any spy or saboteur and far more effective.

The Judge overseeing this case should be should be removed from further action on it by virtue of conflict of interest, as well as gross legal and judicial incompetence. I do not overstate this. So many qualified legal minds have delivered this view in very plain language that it is impossible to state it more thoroughly.

[bronxiteforever]

12. +1

[msfiddlestix]

18. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t

[dalton99a]

23. +1

[fightforfreedom]

6. The brief told her she is an idiot, easy call.

[303squadron]

11. One of these days Neal will sit on SCOTUS!

[Paladin]

16. The sooner the better. (nt)

[Historic NY]

14. Does this judge even have a competent staff?

Plaintiff does not and could not assert that he owns or has any possessor interest in classified records; that he has any right to have those government records returned to him; or that he can advance any plausible claims of attorney-client privilege as to such records.

How does she not know about US v Nixon, has already litigated executive privilege ?

[msfiddlestix]

17. As a "lay person", I completely agree with Katyal's description.

I just read through this filing with pleasure and ease of understanding the textual meaning and intent of the entire document.

Ease of reading through legal text using every day language, for the most part, was exquisite in itself, the formatting and the logical flow added benefit for this reader.

I loved how exquisitely clear Plaintiff made to the Court, what an effed up thing to do in this proceeding and it had better get it fixed because they will win on appeal if needs must. (my words and interpretation)

[reACTIONary]

20. +10! I've dowloaded and will read also. nt

[Mr. Ected]

19. If you try to read Steinbeck to a second grader, they don't really get it

If you tried to read it out loud in English to a foreigner, they couldn't understand it.

I'm afraid this exceptional brief will be like Steinbeck in the hands of a second grader from a place where no one speaks English.

Either that, or they'll understand it perfectly well, but they'll throw it in the fire, ban it, and pretend it wasn't persuasive in the least.

Fake news. Fake brief. Fake court.

[getagrip_already]

21. she issued 2 verbal rulings within hours......

I think she got the point.

The first was ordering tfg's jesters to repond by monday at noon. The other was some kind of order asking tfg's lawyers specifically about the classified docs.

Why 2 orders and not one complete one? Shock.

Still, it seems she turned on her blinkers and changed lanes for the off ramp the doj gave her.

[Mr. Ected]

22. Sure hope so

Off-topic a bit, but worth asking: if the Trump team responds with another nonsensical brief but the judge rules in their favor by making their arguments for them or simply by ignoring the law or precedent, could she be indicted for obstruction? Seems her parachuting into a matter and walling off the DOJ would fall under this category, but I've never heard it applied to a federal judge (which may answer my question).

[getagrip_already]

24. IANAL, but I suspect a federal judge would be immune from criminal charges in the conduct of her job

Just like a senator or potus is.

That isn't to say they couldn't be brought up on internal misconduct investigations. Or impeached. But not prosecuted.

The DOJ is saying that they will appeal if she chooses not to issue a stay. That is about all they can do at the moment.

[msfiddlestix]

26. Oh really, I missed that news. ty. and good to know.

[msfiddlestix]

25. I disagree. This government filing was for me, rather easy to understand...

I'm fairly inexperienced in most of these legal proceedings. I did have a job assisting strictly in administrative capacity, with simple briefs, and writs. But that isn't quite the same thing.