Justice Coney Barrett is getting the full-on, in-the-barrel MAGA treatment for even minimally going against Lord Jesus tRump, and one wonders if her fellow Court members will join CJ Roberts in responding to these vicious attacks that could put the entire Court in physical jeopardy...well, except for you-know-who.
Roberts surely to god must realize that he's got a tiger by the tail, giving tRump total immunity for his actions both past and future, and has to understand that the upshot of a runaway, rogue presidency is the abolishment of Art. III constraints on tRump's traducing of constitutional guidelines, and indeed what we once quaintly referred to as "the rule of law".
If the Chief Justice has any at all institutional regards for the federal courts - and SCOTUS itself - he must form and join a Court majority that can rise definitively to the unprecedented challenges hurled at the courts by the tRump mob, and slap these brigands and privateers down at the first opportunity presented. Failing that, they will have failed the Constitution and we the people. it's that simple.
So anxious for the Roberts court’s inevitable decision making the unitary executive thing official to see if there’ll be any language qualifying it to the extent that the unitary executive is not actually a dictator. OTOH, I don’t expect any language about the impact of the UI on constitutional checks and balances. The Roberts court broke that long ago. OTOH, functional, as opposed to show, democracy requires good faith and that died decades ago, killed by the GOP (with obvious Democrat acquiescence).
Related-ish: I wonder whether any of the Trump v US majority is surprised by what Trump’s doing and, you know, if they foresaw. Which, I suppose, does a majority support this? Time will tell, of course…
I accept trans women in every context except sports. The reason is this: a trans woman does not have the same hormonal history as a cisgender woman. If a trans woman can prove she has no more testosterone in her body than a cisgender woman, perhaps that's OK. If a trans woman can prove that she has no adolescent male development— taller stature, larger muscles—than a cisgender woman that's probably OK too. Why I say, “probably” is that the effect of being born male needs to be studied carefully before its impact on athletics can be fully understood.
I agree with this in theory. But in reality this is about subjecting girls and women to genital inspection. Who is going to determine if an athlete is transgender? Think B. Griner, who had to drop her pants to prove to her Russian captors that she was female. This is all about messing up women’s sports.
If they are trying to make us give up and obey, it's not working (for most of us).
Justice Coney Barrett is getting the full-on, in-the-barrel MAGA treatment for even minimally going against Lord Jesus tRump, and one wonders if her fellow Court members will join CJ Roberts in responding to these vicious attacks that could put the entire Court in physical jeopardy...well, except for you-know-who.
Roberts surely to god must realize that he's got a tiger by the tail, giving tRump total immunity for his actions both past and future, and has to understand that the upshot of a runaway, rogue presidency is the abolishment of Art. III constraints on tRump's traducing of constitutional guidelines, and indeed what we once quaintly referred to as "the rule of law".
If the Chief Justice has any at all institutional regards for the federal courts - and SCOTUS itself - he must form and join a Court majority that can rise definitively to the unprecedented challenges hurled at the courts by the tRump mob, and slap these brigands and privateers down at the first opportunity presented. Failing that, they will have failed the Constitution and we the people. it's that simple.
I don't recognize the
country my ancestors
fought for, that I've been
raised and lived in my
whole life. Like my
ancestors though, I will
not give up. There's too
much here worth saving
from the likes of Trump,
Musk and their dirty
dozen times whatever.
So anxious for the Roberts court’s inevitable decision making the unitary executive thing official to see if there’ll be any language qualifying it to the extent that the unitary executive is not actually a dictator. OTOH, I don’t expect any language about the impact of the UI on constitutional checks and balances. The Roberts court broke that long ago. OTOH, functional, as opposed to show, democracy requires good faith and that died decades ago, killed by the GOP (with obvious Democrat acquiescence).
Related-ish: I wonder whether any of the Trump v US majority is surprised by what Trump’s doing and, you know, if they foresaw. Which, I suppose, does a majority support this? Time will tell, of course…
I accept trans women in every context except sports. The reason is this: a trans woman does not have the same hormonal history as a cisgender woman. If a trans woman can prove she has no more testosterone in her body than a cisgender woman, perhaps that's OK. If a trans woman can prove that she has no adolescent male development— taller stature, larger muscles—than a cisgender woman that's probably OK too. Why I say, “probably” is that the effect of being born male needs to be studied carefully before its impact on athletics can be fully understood.
I agree with this in theory. But in reality this is about subjecting girls and women to genital inspection. Who is going to determine if an athlete is transgender? Think B. Griner, who had to drop her pants to prove to her Russian captors that she was female. This is all about messing up women’s sports.
I think showing your birth certificate will work in the United States— it might not work in Russia.