I also read Vladek about the likely Supreme Ct decision as to birthright citizenship. I agree. Even for this Court, reading the plain language of the Constitution and applying it to a case isn’t that difficult and it’s certainly not brave. And from the Roberts’ perspective it makes sense in two other ways. The Courts glorification of gerrymandering and disassembling of the 14th and 15th Amendments make citizenship greatly diminished anyway. And, of course, Roberts knows there’s a legion of DC punditry ready to return to the fawning glorification of “institutionist” John Roberts and this is ready made for that crap.
Re the AEA case: To their credit, the Big Media outlets that all minimize Trump’s defects as a human being at least show him acting insane. But he’s so much more than a crazy old man. He’s also, to use of his words, a scumbag who sought as mentors criminals, literal, de facto or otherwise. Between that and his toxic narcissism we get what Boasberg is dealing with. Because Donny essentially never can accept discipline.
As for the SCOTUS presidential appointee case (bad on Kate and David not to include in 5heir reports the name of the case), I’m calling it the same I always do: Not going to be a decision creating a precedent that gives a Democratic POTUS any great power. They’ll find a way to limit it to Don the Don. IIRC, I said the same thing about the tariffs case.
An eternal rule of SCOTUS reporting is that only so much can be extrapolated from oral argument.
" Like the others filed Friday, Bove’s declaration was cursory and raised the prospect of using attorney-client privilege as a shield to block further inquiry from Boasberg."
Ordinarily you would resign from office before making such a move. Even though he is in a different role now he's still a government official. If you're using attorney-client privilege you can't continue to serve with any credibility, especially now as a judge.
Hey guys let’s quit the “Karen” references. It’s a misogynistic slur. At its foundation “Karen” is a weapon to shut down women and chide/intimidate women into not speaking up or speaking their minds. Not defending Mace, simply calling out (unconscious) misogyny and asking the authors to drop the slur. Comedy, short hand, being culture hip and/or attempts at levity are not excuses.
Re: 14th Amendment and citizenship...surely one can posit that there is no constituency within the
Scotus majority to ignore the plain reading of this Amendment — none other than J Thomas and his "reconceptionalize the 14th" notion. As grotesque as many of the 6-3 decisions have been, it is unlikely the pattern will prevail in *tRump v Barbara*...isn't it?
Interesting how Habba was "induced" to formally step down, but Halligan is still sticking around, hoping that no action by EDVA judges on her replacement is equivalent to tacit *status quo*, but without any prosecutorial power *at the moment*...very bizarre indeed.
Okay, laugh out loud: "The high school chapters are called “Club America.” I’m told “club” is not a verb." Amazing! Excellent!
My favorite line too--you beat me to it.
sounds like a couple a MAGATs slipped into the jury for the sandwich case. it should not have taken more than 5 minutes to reach a verdict.
Really appreciate Boasberg’s courage
I also read Vladek about the likely Supreme Ct decision as to birthright citizenship. I agree. Even for this Court, reading the plain language of the Constitution and applying it to a case isn’t that difficult and it’s certainly not brave. And from the Roberts’ perspective it makes sense in two other ways. The Courts glorification of gerrymandering and disassembling of the 14th and 15th Amendments make citizenship greatly diminished anyway. And, of course, Roberts knows there’s a legion of DC punditry ready to return to the fawning glorification of “institutionist” John Roberts and this is ready made for that crap.
A lot going on, right
David?! Boasberg will be
very interesting to
follow, especially if they
try to claim attorney/
client privileges. Heck of
a lot is already part of
the court record.
I doubt and pray
SCOTUS will not rule in
Trump's favor on
Birthright Citizenship.
Wondering how it would
affect Melania, Barron
and as an aside, her parents.
Mace? What a mouth!
Repetition time!
Re the AEA case: To their credit, the Big Media outlets that all minimize Trump’s defects as a human being at least show him acting insane. But he’s so much more than a crazy old man. He’s also, to use of his words, a scumbag who sought as mentors criminals, literal, de facto or otherwise. Between that and his toxic narcissism we get what Boasberg is dealing with. Because Donny essentially never can accept discipline.
As for the SCOTUS presidential appointee case (bad on Kate and David not to include in 5heir reports the name of the case), I’m calling it the same I always do: Not going to be a decision creating a precedent that gives a Democratic POTUS any great power. They’ll find a way to limit it to Don the Don. IIRC, I said the same thing about the tariffs case.
An eternal rule of SCOTUS reporting is that only so much can be extrapolated from oral argument.
" Like the others filed Friday, Bove’s declaration was cursory and raised the prospect of using attorney-client privilege as a shield to block further inquiry from Boasberg."
Ordinarily you would resign from office before making such a move. Even though he is in a different role now he's still a government official. If you're using attorney-client privilege you can't continue to serve with any credibility, especially now as a judge.
Hey guys let’s quit the “Karen” references. It’s a misogynistic slur. At its foundation “Karen” is a weapon to shut down women and chide/intimidate women into not speaking up or speaking their minds. Not defending Mace, simply calling out (unconscious) misogyny and asking the authors to drop the slur. Comedy, short hand, being culture hip and/or attempts at levity are not excuses.
Re: 14th Amendment and citizenship...surely one can posit that there is no constituency within the
Scotus majority to ignore the plain reading of this Amendment — none other than J Thomas and his "reconceptionalize the 14th" notion. As grotesque as many of the 6-3 decisions have been, it is unlikely the pattern will prevail in *tRump v Barbara*...isn't it?
Interesting how Habba was "induced" to formally step down, but Halligan is still sticking around, hoping that no action by EDVA judges on her replacement is equivalent to tacit *status quo*, but without any prosecutorial power *at the moment*...very bizarre indeed.