What you need to know about the lawsuit over the appointment of a Louisiana lawyer to the Supreme Court


The appointment of an appellate lawyer to a Louisiana court is usually considered a high priority for a president.

That’s because it can be a precursor to an appellate case.

But, in this case, there was no need to wait for an appellate decision.

The Louisiana Court of Appeals was just the first in the nation to have appointed a Louisiana appellate lawyer.

This is not a story about how President Trump and the lawyers behind his appointment of James Robart to the nation’s highest court will fare in court.

Rather, this is about how they’ll fare when their appointment is challenged in the courts.

Robart’s appointment was challenged by an appellate judge from the state of Texas, who argued that the President should not be allowed to use his constitutional authority to appoint a lawyer who represents a client who has been denied a hearing in federal court.

This case, filed in federal district court, is currently on appeal.

If the Supreme Courts decides to hear this case in the next few months, it will determine whether Robart can be appointed to the court.

The president’s legal team is defending the decision.

In this video, President Trump defends his decision to appoint Robart, which he said was a decision that was “justly and honorably made.”

The president says that the appointment is an “exceptionally rare” example of “executive clemency,” which is why it’s “important” that the case be heard in the court system.

But there’s more to it than that.

In an interview with The New York Times, President Donald Trump’s legal teams argue that the Supreme courts should hear the case in order to prevent a constitutional crisis that could arise in future cases.

If Robart loses his appeal, that means that the entire case could be thrown out.

“This is a situation where the Supreme court is not the arbiter, it’s not the judge, and the court is essentially deciding for itself whether the president is qualified to be president,” said Tom Goldstein, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Richmond and a partner at the law firm Davis Polk & Harriman.

“And so, if the Supreme Supreme Court decides that the president’s appointment of the appellate lawyer is unconstitutional, then the president will not be able to use executive clemencies.”

The law professor also argued that a President Trump’s appointment is not an exception.

Robarts nomination “is a rare and unusual instance of an executive order being used to set aside an earlier order,” he said.

“The president is essentially arguing that he is not subject to the Constitution, but the Supreme law does apply.”

In fact, a Supreme Court decision could prevent the president from appointing Robart at all.

That would be because, according to Goldstein, the Supreme High Court has decided that the executive branch can only be “supreme” in matters involving federal constitutional issues, which means that it is not above the courts in other areas.

This would mean that, even if the president were to veto Robarts appointment, he could still do so because he is technically a federal judge.

If that is the case, Robart could face a federal trial and be convicted of contempt.

The only question is whether Robarts conviction will result in him facing criminal prosecution.

RobART has been serving on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal since 2007.

The appellate court has never heard a case involving Robarts case.

The 9th circuit is a federal appeals court.

That means that appeals are not heard by judges who are appointed by the president.

Instead, appeals are heard by justices who are chosen by the legislature.

Goldstein noted that the federal court has ruled that the decision to replace Robarts is a constitutional issue.

The court noted that Robart is a former judge on the appellate court.

“In this case there is a case before the court,” Goldstein said.

The Trump administration argues that Robarts dismissal is a legal matter, and not an executive matter.

“Robarts dismissal on a procedural grounds would be considered a constitutional violation, which is consistent with the President’s authority to remove a federal court judge who is not fit for the office,” a statement from the White House reads.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits of this issue yet.

The case is currently pending before the Supreme Judicial Court.

It is unclear how long Robarts trial will be held.

The President did not respond to requests for comment on the case.

However, in a tweet this week, he praised Robarts success, saying that the appeals court was “unanimously” in his decision.

He also praised Robart for his “brave and successful” performance.

In addition to defending the President, Goldstein said that Robarte is “a lawyer for the president of the United States, and he’s also a lawyer for his legal team.”

Robarts lawyers, who are based in Washington,

, , , ,