Coconspirators. Well, today, everyone can see every moment in this courtroom. You can see it with your own eyes. This is the very first Pretrial Hearing for the Georgia Rico Case against defendant trump and others. As a matter of history, what you see unfold here, what unfolds minute by minute is the first time trump is seeing inside a courtroom where trump and his defendants will stand inside a trial to overthrow an election, to abuse power to hold on to power, illegally say the prosecutors. Well put this back up here. When you look at this judge, when you look inside the courtroom, this is where these defendants will be judged. At times what you might see might remind you of any other courtroom in america. People standing and sitting for the judge, the Bailiff Keeping Order in the corner of the room. The judge going through papers. Sometimes what we might see will be at times repetitive or dry. Yet what you are looking at is where these individuals will be judged for their roles in t
watch this show, you have seen the work of an artist, a courtroom sketch artist named art lean, federal courts don t allow cameras so we have needed art lean to visualize lots of the proceedings we ve covered here over the years including lots of trump era favorites such as paul manafort and steve bannon and the supreme court justices themselves at work. arthur lane started work as a court artist in 1976, an unparalleled talent in a very important part of public life, the only courtroom artist allow nad the first military tribunals at guantanamo bay, and in the early days of pandemic he adapted to virtual supreme court proceedings by getting lawyers to send photos of themselves making oral arguments and turned those photos into sketches. this sketch captures stephen breyer s last case as a supreme
be sort of a private attorneys general? and if the attorney general or other state official don t enforce the law, would it be that unusual to consider them as acting in concert with the state to enforce a state-preferred policy? two points, your honor. first, everybody tort action, undoubtedly advances a state-preferred policy. if reason why they re not acting in concert with or cannot be called but usually when you think of traditional torts, there is a duty, there s an injury to the individual. it s a private matter. there is no requirement here that there be an injury to the plaintiff. your honor, the texas supreme court has followed article iii requirements in terms of injury and fact that doesn t need to appear on so what would that injury be in this under sb-8, if it s an injury in fact. one example could be akin to the injury suffered in a tort of outrage, when an individual
becomes aware of a noncompliant abortion and they suffer the sort of same extreme emotional harm, that would ground an article iii injury for purposes of texas law. that would be sufficient to satisfy the texas article iii-style screen, that addresses some of my friends on the other side s concerns about an unlimited set of lawsuits or that anyone could possibly bring an sb-8 action. congress passes laws all time that don t expressly require that individuals show, for example, their own personal injury or traceability or redressability, but nonetheless, this court says, those are fundamental requirements of article iii, and the texas supreme court traces that same requirement to its own constitutional analog, the open courts provision. but i forgive me, but i don t recall an outrage injury. what would that be? you said extreme outrage, that would be the injury. the injury would be akin to a one suffered in a tort of outrage, where someone witnesses something that that essentially
appropriate defendants under well-established article iii inequitable principles. second, the petitioner has asked for an expansion of access to the federal courts that only congress and not this court may provide. petitioner s article iii inequitable problems, again, with what they really want, an injunction against sb-8, the law itself. they can t receive that, because federal courts don t issue injunctions against laws, but against officials enforcing laws. no texas executive official enforces sb-8 either, and so no texas executive official may be injoined. petitioners then turned to state court judges and state court clerks and apparently in this court, now narrow their focus to state court clerks, but even they don t suggest that either judges or clerks act unlawfully by adjudicaing case or receiving a complaint. so petitioner s harms are not