“The legitimacy of slavery is really framed by white slaveholders around the law that it’s legally legitimate. “Slavery was challenged in court by enslaved people almost from Day 1 of the United States in 1789,” Thomas said. Thomas III, a professor of history at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who researches and writes about freedom suits. There are hundreds of instances of slaves suing slaveholders in the Washington court system alone, according to William G. Matilda Derrick sued slaveholder George Mason, a grandson of the revolutionary, in 1822, and in 1828, Thomas Butler petitioned a court against Gabriel Duvall, an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Francis Neale, a Jesuit priest and future president of Georgetown College. In 1818, Priscilla Queen filed a petition against Rev. Known widely as the “Great Compromiser,” Clay was just the latest in a series of high-profile, slaveholding Americans living in the nation’s capital sued by their slaves for their freedom, the Lincoln Journal Star reported. Her owner was Henry Clay, the sitting secretary of state, a former speaker of the House of Representatives and aspiring presidential hopeful. Supreme Court, a decision that further pushed the country toward civil war, a slave named Charlotte Dupuy asked a Washington, D.C. (AP) - A quarter century before Dred Scott’s petition to be free from slavery was rejected by the U.S. But after Trump took advantage of that pause with comments that prosecutors said were meant to sway his former chief of staff against giving unfavorable testimony, Chutkan put it back in place.LINCOLN, Neb. The judge lifted it days after entering it, giving Trump’s lawyers time to prove why his words should not be restricted. The order has had a whirlwind trajectory through the courts since Chutkan imposed it in response to a request from prosecutors, who cited among other comments Trump’s repeated disparagement of Smith as “deranged.” “He has to speak Miss Manners while everyone else is throwing targets at him?” she asked. Millett at one point expressed incredulity at the idea that Trump would not be able to respond to criticism by rival candidates in a debate. “Labeling it core political speech begs the question if it’s political speech or speech aimed at derailing the criminal process,” she said.īut the judges also repeatedly wondered where to strike a balance, raising the prospect that the gag order could ultimately be narrowed. Judge Millett recoiled at Sauer’s argument that Trump was merely engaged in core political speech. Though Sauer contended that prosecutors had not drawn a direct line between Trump’s rhetoric and actual harm, VanDevender pointed out that a Texas woman stands charged with making a death threat against the judge in the Trump case, Tanya Chutkan, just one day after Trump in August posted on social media: “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” Prosecutors cited that episode in its original gag order request, saying Trump’s posts had “already influenced the public.”Īnother judge hearing the arguments, Cornelia Pillard, sharply questioned Sauer over whether he believed any restrictions on Trump’s speech were allowed, telling him: “I don’t hear you giving any weight at all to the interest in a fair trial.” “This is predictably going to intensify as well as the threats, so why isn’t the district court justified in taking a more proactive measure and not waiting for more and more threats to occur and stepping in to protect the integrity of the trial?” Garcia said. Judge Brad Garcia pressed Sauer to explain why the court shouldn’t take preventive steps before violence materializes against potential witnesses or others.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |