no girl tell us what you think about jegulily!! im so here for it (tone is weird but I mean that genuinely, I don't ship them so I'm not here to be weird)
dw bae ur tone is fine ! (i’ve been waiting for an ask like this 💀) i think jegulily is... yeah its…. like usually as long as its legal idgaf as long as shippers portray their characters right but regulus fans are literally incapable 😭🙏 WHY WOULD U PAIR A MUGGLEBORN AND A BLOOD SUPREMACIST IM SO DONE WITH DIS FANDOMMMM!! that actually goes for a lot of lily ships like bartylily as well (no clue where that came from either but it’s equally as stupid lmfao).
and jegulily just feels like shoving in lily because people feel bad for ditching her, or shoving in regulus because some people like jily and jegulus and want them (for some reason) to coincide even though it makes zeroooo sense for it to. like, idk if i said this with jegulus before (i yap sm on this account i forget what i say), but like it, jegulily can be done well if a realistic dynamic is taken into account, but the marauders fandom is allergic to nuance and so just chalks up everything regulus does and believes to his neglectful homelife. hes not all-bad, sure, i do feel bad for him, but im nowhere close to shipping him with a woman whos part of the people hes trying to eradicate, or with her man who purposefully went against all pureblood tradition (which is such a large part of james’ character— he is a pureblood that chooses to be seperate from that culture hellooooo plz wake uppppp).
marauders fandom has a chronic “i can fix him” mentality when it comes to wizard neo nazis, i have never understood it. but thats a topic for another day.
jegulily should be filled with envy, toxicity and prejudice stop nerfing it to be some fluffy feel-good polyamorous stable marriage where they raise harry together. yall are looking over the potential. this ship has blood and guts in it plz act like it or else idk what to say 😭 if it doesnt end with at least one of them getting murdered i dont want it.
63 notes
·
View notes
Special Counsel Jack Smith has had it with Trump-appointed Federal Judge Aileen Cannon. Judge Cannon has been indulging every questionable whim used by Trump's lawyers in the classified documents case in order to stall it. Her decisions have been blatantly partisan; perhaps Trump promised her a seat on the US Supreme Court – not that he's famous for following through on loyalty.
Jack Smith filed a motion asking Cannon to get moving with the case – with the implied threat that he will appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to have her overruled or even removed from the case. The 11th Circuit had already, in a unanimous decision, vacated a previous order of hers which would have delayed the proceedings.
Time To Fire The Cannon?
Putting Trump back in office would allow him to appoint more dubious judges like Aileen Cannon. Defeating Trump would not just protect democracy but would prevent the federal judiciary from becoming a corrupt Trump tool.
21 notes
·
View notes
The wife of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, the man convicted and sentenced to death for the kidnap and murder of the Lindbergh baby, appeared before a wildly demonstrative crowd in Yorkville, the heart of the city’s German section, February 27, 1935. She asked for funds to appeal her husband’s conviction. In response, a box two feet square was stuffed nearly a foot deep with bills, but the amount raised was not announced.
Photo: Anthony Camerano for the AP
20 notes
·
View notes
Mike Luckovich
* * * *
Jack Smith calls the question.
December 12, 2023
ROBERT B. HUBBELL
Monday brought multiple positive developments for those who yearn for the courts to serve as a bulwark against Trump's effort to assume dictatorial powers. Let’s review the threads of hope that run through the judicial developments on Monday relating to Trump.
Jack Smith goes directly to the Supreme Court on the question of Trump's presidential immunity defense in the D.C. election interference case.
Trump's primary defense against the 91 federal indictments secured by Jack Smith is delay. His claim of presidential immunity for all acts undertaken as president is not a serious defense but is structured to create delay. It is one of the few defenses that can lead to a pre-trial appeal—and lengthy delay of trial.
Judge Chutkan denied Trump's motion to dismiss the D.C. election interference case, and Trump appealed to the D.C. Circuit. After the D.C. Circuit rules, the matter can go to the Supreme Court. Even with expedited briefing in both the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, that process might delay Trump's criminal trial until after the 2024 election.
Everyone knows that Trump's claim of presidential immunity will eventually end up in the US Supreme Court, so Jack Smith called the question on Monday by asking the Supreme Court to take the case without an intervening stop in the D.C. Circuit. The procedure invoked by Smith has been used in extraordinary cases—including US v. Nixon.
The historical background is discussed by Lucian K. Truscott IV in his excellent Substack newsletter. See Lucian K. Truscott IV, It's called the Nixon rule, and the Supreme Court should uphold it without delay (substack.com). I highly recommend Truscott’s analysis—so much so that I will assume you have (or will) read it so that I can skip some of the details he ably covers.
Jack Smith’s petition is here: U.S. v. Donald J. Trump | Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment.
Before addressing Smith’s petition, let’s skip to the end: Smith has undertaken a bold, brilliant, gutsy move that prioritizes the interest of the American people in knowing whether the leading GOP presidential candidate is a criminal before they are asked to vote for (or against) him in November 2024.
Smith is, of course, taking a gamble by front-loading the ‘overwhelming question’ that will determine whether Trump is above the law. Framed as a two-part question by Jack Smith in his petition, he asks the Supreme Court to decide the following:
Whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office, or
Is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted [in the Senate] before the criminal proceeding begins.
The answer to those questions is plainly “No.” The questions posed by Smith can be reframed as, “In America, is any person above the law?” Again, the answer is plainly “No.”
Given that Trump's defense is meritless and should be summarily rejected, Jack Smith’s petition poses the following question to the Supreme Court:
Will the US Supreme Court aid and abet Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election by delaying his trial until after the 2024 election—preserving the possibility that Trump will dismiss the prosecutions against himself if he is elected?
Stripped to its essence, Jack Smith is challenging the Supreme Court to put its legitimacy and legacy on the line. Indeed, he is offering the Court the opportunity for partial rehabilitation. If they decline that opportunity, the justices will deserve the judgment of history that would follow a refusal to consider the matter on an expedited basis and rule that “No person is above the law.”
Let’s now look at the procedural posture of the petition. Jack Smith is asking for two forms of relief: (a) to skip over the D.C. Court of Appeals by granting a “writ of certiorari” (a fancy word for appellate review), and (b) that the Supreme Court grant review on an expedited basis.
In a positive sign, the Supreme Court ordered Trump to respond to Smith’s request for expedited review on Wednesday, December 20, 2023. As explained by Professor Tribe on Lawrence O’Donnell’s “The Last Word,” the fact that the Supreme Court ordered Trump to file on an opposition on an expedited basis suggests that there are five votes on the Supreme Court to grant Jack Smith’s request for expedited review.
If the Supreme Court is inclined to grant expedited review, that is a very good sign. It suggests that Trump will be tried for election interference before the November 2024 election. Although a conviction is not guaranteed, Jack Smith will present evidence of Trump's guilt on the eve of the 2024 election. That is all we can ask for.
But there is more good news. As Jack Smith was filing his petition with the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals also indicated that it would move expeditiously by granting Smith’s separate motion for an expedited hearing before the D.C. Circuit. On Monday, the D.C. Circuit ordered Trump to file a response by Wednesday, December 13, in opposition to Smith’s request for an expedited hearing in the D.C. Circuit.
Here is the way to think about the dual proceedings in the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court. Unless and until the Supreme Court grants Jack Smith’s petition for a writ of certiorari, the D.C. Circuit retains jurisdiction over the case. If the Supreme Court grants Smith’s petition, the D.C. Circuit loses jurisdiction; if it denies Smith’s petition, the D.C. Circuit retains jurisdiction.
In effect, Smith is on “two fast tracks” to review Trump's defense of presidential immunity. He has hedged his bets and called the question. Good!
24 notes
·
View notes