Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

LetMyPeopleVote

(177,725 posts)

6. I originated and worked on a case that we took to the Texas Supreme Court

Reply to unblock (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 22, 2026, 09:40 PM

7 hrs ago

I actually had to argue a couple of summary judgement motions in that case including one against the then top trial lawyer in Houston. That case lasted a very long time.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump's plan B to impose new tariffs is also illegal because a balance-of-payments deficit doesn't exist, trade experts [View all] LetMyPeopleVote 14 hrs ago OP

Missing the point. They don't care. The supreme joke will give them another year before they stop him unblock 14 hrs ago #1

There was an arguable case for the prior tariffs in that there was no case law LetMyPeopleVote 12 hrs ago #3

Yeah, faster. By judicial standards, anyway. unblock 10 hrs ago #5

I originated and worked on a case that we took to the Texas Supreme Court LetMyPeopleVote 7 hrs ago #6

Trump charges/changes tariffs capriciously, most often with revenge/coercion, not based on economics. Norrrm 13 hrs ago #2

If the GOP congress was smart...and brave...this would be their break point with Trump. Paint it as for lower prices... dutch777 11 hrs ago #4

The Court of Appeals in this case has ruled that Section 122 does not apply LetMyPeopleVote 7 hrs ago #7