dagblog - Comments for "Did you bring the handcuffs, Nancy?"

On the wider point, viz

jollyroger — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:15:06 +0000

On the wider point, viz compliance with the subpoena, the Appeals Court not having reached the merits, keep their hole cards obscured.

They were merely willing to concede, a priori,, (as it were) that a call for their intervention from an individual in peril of real harm would implicate their decision making duties in a way which the case before them did not.

Felony cuter-than-the-law

jollyroger — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:10:00 +0000

In reply to But the whole point is to

Felony cuter-than-the-law-allows, with enhancements.

But the whole point is to

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 06:49:00 +0000

In reply to Evidently the Court of

But the whole point is to lock the fuckers up until they comply, not appeal - the Susan McDougal approach.

Evidently the Court of

jollyroger — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 06:41:54 +0000

In reply to Did you bring the handcuffs, Nancy?

ETA the relevant precedent, the imprisonment for contempt of Howard Snowden Marshall...

https://www.pointoforder.com/2019/10/29/dont-lock-him-up/

Evidently the Court of Appeals anticipated my question regarding a hypothetical In re:Barr, petition for Habeas Corpus.

Among the remedies proffered in amelioration of it's denial to the House of entry to the courts for redress, the opinion references the power of the House to enforce directly it's judgment that a noncomplier was guilty of contempt of congress, and, as Barr so wryly referenced, arrive with the cuffs.

In that case, the court helpfully pointed out, the aggrieved and putatively imprisoned contemnor would have the standing (lacking to the House) to seek the intervention of the Third Branch.