Kash Patel, Emil Bove, Bondi... what can one say? Has ever an administration in our nation's history had such a cast of mendacious mediocrities? Texas politics are always baroque, never more so than under Abbott and that's saying something considering some of the doozies they've had as governor. Paxton's career has been emblematic of the total Texas experience. It would all make for a carnival house of horrors train ride if it weren't for the fact it is all in deadly seriousness.
What Reuveni's various bits of internal communication re: Kilmar Abrego suggest is that the preferred audience is SCOTUS, not a rubber-stamping Senate Judiciary Committee, or the GOPer Senate, nor do they particularly concern only Bove's nomination. Rather, these communications clearly play to countless allegations of misrepresentation and callous disregard for truthful testimony throughout the dozens of court cases entered into by tRump's DOJ and DHS, and surely is the clearest indication that this regime has ZERO respect for ethical conduct when in a federal court *by design*, and that such conduct traduces the very nature of legal hearings. It's in fact the destruction of the "presumption of regularity" ethos, without which a court hearing loses its bonafides, end of.
In short, whenever the DOJ or SG files an "emergency" appeal against a federal judge's ruling, SCOTUS should assume in the first instance that the "appeal" is tainted, and that the "facts" as presented are the equivalent of "fuck you" to the lower-court judge and his/her decisions against this regime. THAT'S what should inform the Court's decision-making process, and nothing else.
Those six were put there for a purpose and they are fulfilling their mandate. Check out Leah Litman's new book titled, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes.
"In Lawless, she [Litman] argues that the Supreme Court is no longer practicing law; it’s running on vibes. By “vibes,” Litman means legal-ish claims that repackage the politics of conservative grievance and dress them up in robes. Major decisions adopt the language and posture of the law, while in fact displaying a commitment to protecting a single minority: the religious conservatives and Republican officials whose views are no longer shared by a majority of the country."
I love this for Ken, may he live a long life in agonizing pain and ignominy. As the saying goes (I think it was in Down By Law), “ Must be either a dead girl or a live boy.”
Speaking of defiance of courts: Consider what would (or wouldn’t) happen if our beloved Fuhrer responded to SCOTUS orders or whatever the way he responds to lower court orders and directives.
Kash Patel, Emil Bove, Bondi... what can one say? Has ever an administration in our nation's history had such a cast of mendacious mediocrities? Texas politics are always baroque, never more so than under Abbott and that's saying something considering some of the doozies they've had as governor. Paxton's career has been emblematic of the total Texas experience. It would all make for a carnival house of horrors train ride if it weren't for the fact it is all in deadly seriousness.
What Reuveni's various bits of internal communication re: Kilmar Abrego suggest is that the preferred audience is SCOTUS, not a rubber-stamping Senate Judiciary Committee, or the GOPer Senate, nor do they particularly concern only Bove's nomination. Rather, these communications clearly play to countless allegations of misrepresentation and callous disregard for truthful testimony throughout the dozens of court cases entered into by tRump's DOJ and DHS, and surely is the clearest indication that this regime has ZERO respect for ethical conduct when in a federal court *by design*, and that such conduct traduces the very nature of legal hearings. It's in fact the destruction of the "presumption of regularity" ethos, without which a court hearing loses its bonafides, end of.
In short, whenever the DOJ or SG files an "emergency" appeal against a federal judge's ruling, SCOTUS should assume in the first instance that the "appeal" is tainted, and that the "facts" as presented are the equivalent of "fuck you" to the lower-court judge and his/her decisions against this regime. THAT'S what should inform the Court's decision-making process, and nothing else.
Those six were put there for a purpose and they are fulfilling their mandate. Check out Leah Litman's new book titled, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes.
"In Lawless, she [Litman] argues that the Supreme Court is no longer practicing law; it’s running on vibes. By “vibes,” Litman means legal-ish claims that repackage the politics of conservative grievance and dress them up in robes. Major decisions adopt the language and posture of the law, while in fact displaying a commitment to protecting a single minority: the religious conservatives and Republican officials whose views are no longer shared by a majority of the country."
https://civilianreader.com/2025/03/09/quick-review-lawless-by-leah-litman-atria-one-signal/
I love this for Ken, may he live a long life in agonizing pain and ignominy. As the saying goes (I think it was in Down By Law), “ Must be either a dead girl or a live boy.”
Speaking of defiance of courts: Consider what would (or wouldn’t) happen if our beloved Fuhrer responded to SCOTUS orders or whatever the way he responds to lower court orders and directives.