the appeal that they made? well, anderson, one of the first things that the president s lawyers take on is the idea that he is an insurrectionist, which is something that the colorado supreme court had ruled. they say he is not, that the january 6th attack was not an insurrection, and that the former president did not engage in insurrection. they also say that the congress, not state courts, should be the ones that determine the eligibility for the presidency. they also say that the 14th amendment, the letter, if you read the 14th amendment, section three, it doesn t mention the office of the presidency and it doesn t apply, they say, to the former president. i will read you a little more of what they argue. they say that this colorado ruling, if allowed to stand, will mark the first time in the history of the united states the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major party presidential candidate. and obviously, that is what is at stake her
picking apart individual statements or lines from the president. what i think they try to do is reach some point of unimin in the or near unanimity over some of these questions over, for instance, is the president an officer of the united states? is the president does he take the same oath as other people, therefore is he exempt from the provisions in the 14th amendment that would apply here? because of how fraught and complicated politically sensitive this insurrection question is, and very difficult legally to sort out, i think they just avoid it altogether. and frankly, it s probably more in the presidents interest, the courts interest, to say, look, forget insurrection, he s a candidate for office. and people who are speaking in the context of the political process generally are afforded more latitude to speak. maggie, when you look back at that speech, he talks about fighting, fight like hell, he use that term a lot. he does that. he uses the words that can be interpreted in m
Shine Lawyers circles Unimin lawsuits
By Emma Ryan|08 February 2021
Shine Lawyers has spoken out about several clients’ plans to launch a series of lawsuits against global minerals company Unimin.
The matter comes as at least seven former workers of the company make clear their plans to sue after being diagnosed with a range of diseases linked to toxic dust exposure at two of its Melbourne-based silica milling factories.
According to a statement from Shine, 52-year-old Kevin Weekes is one of the long-standing employees alleging that Unimin was negligent by failing to provide a safe workplace at the factories.
“You could always see the silica dust in the air but we weren’t warned about the health risks despite that being something all workers needed to know,” Mr Weekes said, who was diagnosed with silicosis in 2019 after spending 28 years at the company.