The U.S. Supreme Court may allow Trump to stay on the ballot in Colorado based on a consensus that focuses on Congress's role in determining disqualification, avoiding a ruling on whether he is an insurrectionist.
The defamation case win by climate scientist Michael Mann against right-wing bloggers sends a message that attacking scientists in a defamatory manner is not protected speech, highlighting the importance of maintaining professional reputation and challenging false claims.
The conviction of Jennifer Crumbly for the actions of her son in a mass shooting sets a precedent for holding parents accountable, potentially leading to stricter enforcement of safe gun storage laws and prevention of future tragedies.
Deep dives
Key Points: Supreme Court Arguments on Trump's Eligibility
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Trump's eligibility to be on the ballot in Colorado. While the court seemed more inclined to consider the argument that the President is included in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualification clause, a consensus on the result may be reached, allowing Trump to stay on the ballot. Chief Justice Roberts may aim for a unanimous or majority opinion that focuses on Congress's role in determining disqualification, avoiding a ruling on whether Trump is an insurrectionist. The court aims to balance legal and political considerations to avoid a divisive decision.
Jury Awards Climate Scientist Damages in Defamation Case
Climate scientist Michael Mann won a defamation case against two right-wing bloggers who falsely claimed he manipulated data in his research on climate change. The jury awarded Mann more than a million dollars in damages. The case raises questions about First Amendment rights in challenging scientific research. While scientific debate is important, the defendants' false claims crossed the line into defamation, harming Mann's professional reputation. The jury's verdict sends a message that attacking scientists in a defamatory manner is not protected speech.
Attacks on Scientific Research
Attacks on scientific research and scientists have become more common, with numerous cases aimed at discrediting the findings of researchers. In the case of climate science, the attacks have become particularly intense due to the prominence of the issue and its political implications. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund provides free legal advice to scientists facing defamation and attacks on their credibility. These attacks pose a danger not only to individual scientists but also to the scientific community as a whole and the pursuit of knowledge.
Implications of Jennifer Crumbly Verdict on Parents' Accountability for Mass Shootings
The recent conviction of Jennifer Crumbly, the mother of Ethan Crumbly who carried out a mass shooting in Oxford, Michigan, sets a precedent for holding parents accountable for the actions of their children in such cases. This historic verdict demonstrates that parents can be held liable for involuntary manslaughter when they fail to take appropriate measures to prevent their child's access to firearms. While this verdict cannot be applied retroactively, it serves as an example to prosecutors across the country to enforce safe gun storage and safety laws more vigorously, thus potentially preventing future tragedies.
Implications of Amicus Briefs in the Supreme Court
Amicus briefs, or "friend of the court" briefs, can be submitted to the Supreme Court under certain conditions. If all parties consent, anyone can file an amicus brief. However, if consent is not given, parties must seek the court's permission to file an amicus brief. In this case, individuals or organizations must demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest or unique perspective to offer that could contribute to the court's decision-making process. The Supreme Court may consider amicus briefs that provide valuable insights or perspectives on a particular case, but they should not simply duplicate the arguments of the parties involved.
Jill Wine-Banks hosts #SistersInLaw to cover the judicial decisions affecting Trump’s prosecutions, including the SCOTUS ruling in Trump’s Colorado ballot case, the DC Circuit's denial of presidential immunity, and Alan Weisselbberg’s potential perjury in the NY fraud case. Then, the #Sisters share their take on Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on the decision not to prosecute President Biden for mishandling classified documents and why the report is problematic. They also discuss the jury verdict defending Michael Mann’s climate change data from defamatory attacks and explore what it means for science.
Factor:
Get 50% off your first box of delicious ready to eat meals and two free wellness shots per box while your subscription is active with code SIL50 at factormeals.com/sil50
OneSkin:
Get 15% off OneSkin with the code SISTERS at www.oneskin.co #oneskinpod
Aura:
Take your family’s cybersecurity to the highest level. Get a 14 day trial and explore their parental control options for FREE when you visit aura.com/sisters
