Until these kinds of cases are assigned to a random district court, nobody's fooled by this.

I didn't realize the United States was an authoritarian system until just a few weeks ago. Free at last, free at last. Can you shed some light on what speeds of policymaking are definitely not authoritarian? Asking for a friend.

The judiciary does not (and cannot) prosecute. Prosecutors are officials of the executive for this very reason. Regardless, offering blanket immunity as the solution to people hypothetically log-jamming the political process with frivolous lawsuits is laughable. I guess Bob Menendez shouldn't have been potentially interrupted from doing the peoples work.

Can you point me to the part of the constitution describing the procedure for impeaching former presidents? If they do the crimes at the end of their term is that just water under the bridge?

> The trump immunity case put forth what has always been

I find this the most disturbing aspect of contemporary attempts at justifying the Supreme Court's behavior. When the court was full of liberals, they were doing judicial activism and that was bad and their decisions should be overturned. But now that those presidents who lost the popular vote got our guys in, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law isn't the product of biases and preferences held by political appointees, it simply reveals eternal truths set out by our most benevolent god-kissed founders.

The line of argument about "bold and decisive action" is complete bullshit. The OLC has told previous presidents, in writing, that they are not immune from prosecution and that knowledge did not fatally impede their judgment. The president also has a fleet of lawyers at their disposal, and the DoJ conceded in oral argument that if the president obtained an opinion from the attorney general that a given act was indeed legal, the president would have immunity for that act via estoppel by entrapment.

The opinion does almost nothing to establish what is and is not an official act for the purposes of this new immunity. This has become a hallmark of the Roberts court; making a power grab by writing an opinion that rests on laughably malleable language ("major questions", "deeply rooted in tradition", "official acts"). You can just wait until your friends appeal the cases that didn't go your way, grant cert because of course you get to pick your own dock, and laugh all the way to the bank.

The cherry on top is the part prohibiting even the introduction of evidence relating to official acts. If the president openly takes a cartoon burlap sack of money in exchange for a pardon, the standard set out in the opinion is that you cannot introduce any evidence pertaining to the grant of the pardon, because the pardon power is a core constitutional authority of the executive.

The entire opinion is ahistorical, poorly reasoned, and profoundly unwise.

“Put simply, neither the Compensation Committee nor the Board acted in the best interests of the Company when negotiating Musk’s compensation plan. In fact, there is barely any evidence of negotiations at all. Rather than negotiate against Musk with the mindset of a third party, the Compensation Committee worked alongside him, almost as an advisory body.”

“The Board never asked the $55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary for Tesla to retain Musk and achieve its goals?”

“The incredible size of the biggest compensation plan ever—an unfathomable sum—seems to have been calibrated to help Musk achieve what he believed would make “a good future for humanity” [related to Musk’s goal of colonizing Mars]. [T]hat had no relation to Tesla’s goals with the compensation plan.”

> As you yourself noted, the precedent in Delaware is that judges stay away from second guessing boards or shareholders and this seems like an activist ruling, not something based on past Delaware rulings.

Revisiting and potentially invalidating decisions regarding compensation is like an entire standalone unit in business associations/corporate law classes. There are flow charts with forks named after precedential cases.

The magic third ingredient is that the state was allowed to bring in an expert witness to tell the jury that there's a causal link between shaking of the kind observed by the fact witness and the infliction of fatal injuries like those seen in the child.

If it turns out no such link actually exists, you sort of have a problem, because the jury heard it either way. Also fwiw, that brief is still an adversarial motion, you cannot expect to get a balanced recounting of the facts by reading the state's motion in opposition.

And Google could freeze all work for and collaboration with the party plausibly accused of acts of genocide until the decision comes in. But they won't, and their employees are only following their lead.

It also doesn't seem reasonable to tell someone they need to wait until a potential genocide, and what might be their role in it, is done and over before they have the social okay to start engaging in political speech.

> Its similar to the amount of evidence needed for a search warrant in a normal case - you need some, but much less then you need for an actual conviction.

No, it isn't. The ICJ proceedings were adversarial, and the process of obtaining a search warrant is not.

Is there anything an employer could do or be involved in that, in your mind, justifies civil disobedience in the work place, or is there just no limiting principle here?

Small claims court is a completely different beast, it is designed to be navigated without counsel.

If you play this way in civil litigation you are likely going to lose before you know what hit you.

The MBE in particular is an embarrassment and the NCBE should be ashamed of themselves. The idea that the MBE or any portion of the UBE is a reasonable test of one's ability to practice law is worse than a joke, as it extracts an enormous amount of money in preparation and administration fees from applicants.

An expanded form of something like the California Performance Test would, in my opinion, be a pretty good test of minimum competency to protect the public, but if what we're actually offered looks like the UBE, just forget the whole thing.