My new thing, in view of the 24/7 tsunami of insanity, is to tamp down the fully warranted excesses of cynicism but it's hard.
So I'm just going toss out some things without triggering discussion.
Firstly, there's the belief or whatever in due process. But due process can, like democracy, be so compromised that it reaches a point that whether it exists or not is an irrelevant distinction. There was a news bite last week about one group of immigrants being given a written description of their rights including far too little time to act on their behalf. Suffice to say, odds are there's at least five votes on the Roberts court that that bullshit is sufficient due process.
And to sequence from that, seeing resistance from the judiciary has to be qualified by the reality of the Roberts court which is nearly always happy to put the implementation of party goals before the rule of law or the constitution.
And the we have what one can call Pritzker's exercise in state party/national party diplomacy. Now that I think about it, it looks like Newsom and Whitmer are setting themselves up to be acceptable to the national party for 2028, which is to say moving rightward, while Pritzker is willing to maintain a state level focus. Interesting.
We have the three liberals. ACB is showing signs of breaking away from the conservative bloc on some issues. She's taking after her hero Felix Frankfurter in that way. Roberts is hard to call but it seems to me (and maybe to you also) that he's an institutionalist and mindful of how history will look on his Court and him. Besides, he's beginning to mildly push back on the Executive's assaults on the Article III judiciary. I'm no lawyer, but I expect a narrowly crafted decision, with less wiggle room, rebuking the Executive. But that's just my opinion (shrugs).
ACB is a black box to me; haven’t been able to suss out her limits.
Roberts is huge on appearances. I think he needs the appearance of due process but how little he needs, time will tell.
(It’s Monday so no shitting on the national Democrats for their unjustified tolerance for Roberts court abuses jurisprudentially as well as corruption-wise.)
I think we still don't have the full picture on the Dugan case, so I'm still reserving judgement. On the presidential pardon power, we shouldn't forget the April 1st pardon of BitMex, which set a very dangerous precedent.
During the litigation regarding the "stolen" election, trumpites were bitterly complaining that the courts were "ignoring evidence." When you looked at what was "ignored" it was clearly hearsay or speculation or both: "my sister in law told me that she saw boxes of stolen votes" with no sister in law to testify when she obtained X-ray eyes.
Lawyers recognized this, however.
And now we have all of that "hearsay and speculation is clear evidence" coming from DOJ LAWYERS. The ruling by Briones is WELL WORTH reading (pages 24-34
My new thing, in view of the 24/7 tsunami of insanity, is to tamp down the fully warranted excesses of cynicism but it's hard.
So I'm just going toss out some things without triggering discussion.
Firstly, there's the belief or whatever in due process. But due process can, like democracy, be so compromised that it reaches a point that whether it exists or not is an irrelevant distinction. There was a news bite last week about one group of immigrants being given a written description of their rights including far too little time to act on their behalf. Suffice to say, odds are there's at least five votes on the Roberts court that that bullshit is sufficient due process.
And to sequence from that, seeing resistance from the judiciary has to be qualified by the reality of the Roberts court which is nearly always happy to put the implementation of party goals before the rule of law or the constitution.
And the we have what one can call Pritzker's exercise in state party/national party diplomacy. Now that I think about it, it looks like Newsom and Whitmer are setting themselves up to be acceptable to the national party for 2028, which is to say moving rightward, while Pritzker is willing to maintain a state level focus. Interesting.
Gov. Pritzker strikes me as the most authentic of the group you named. I hope he runs and is successful!
Always look forward to reading your well thought-out comments. The Roberts Court may surprise some of us- I would doubt they have four votes in favor.
Five votes for some minimal appearance of due process.
The GOP’s opposed to any meaningful degree of due process so…
We have the three liberals. ACB is showing signs of breaking away from the conservative bloc on some issues. She's taking after her hero Felix Frankfurter in that way. Roberts is hard to call but it seems to me (and maybe to you also) that he's an institutionalist and mindful of how history will look on his Court and him. Besides, he's beginning to mildly push back on the Executive's assaults on the Article III judiciary. I'm no lawyer, but I expect a narrowly crafted decision, with less wiggle room, rebuking the Executive. But that's just my opinion (shrugs).
ACB is a black box to me; haven’t been able to suss out her limits.
Roberts is huge on appearances. I think he needs the appearance of due process but how little he needs, time will tell.
(It’s Monday so no shitting on the national Democrats for their unjustified tolerance for Roberts court abuses jurisprudentially as well as corruption-wise.)
Judge Dugan arrest? I
don't think even
SCOTUS will like the
flavor of this one.
New club opens in DC:
The Executive Branch.
$500 thousand is the
membership fee and
there's a waiting list.
This is definitely the
pay-to-play
administration.
Outrageous!
I think we still don't have the full picture on the Dugan case, so I'm still reserving judgement. On the presidential pardon power, we shouldn't forget the April 1st pardon of BitMex, which set a very dangerous precedent.
If Deporting MS-13 Gang Members is a Constitutional Crisis, Then Let the Crisis Begin
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/if-deporting-ms-13-gang-members-is
During the litigation regarding the "stolen" election, trumpites were bitterly complaining that the courts were "ignoring evidence." When you looked at what was "ignored" it was clearly hearsay or speculation or both: "my sister in law told me that she saw boxes of stolen votes" with no sister in law to testify when she obtained X-ray eyes.
Lawyers recognized this, however.
And now we have all of that "hearsay and speculation is clear evidence" coming from DOJ LAWYERS. The ruling by Briones is WELL WORTH reading (pages 24-34
Remove bondi and her law license!!