Fed District judges eventually will get the message that SCOTUS — except in increasingly rare instances — does NOT have their backs in many of the immigrant deportation cases, and to pare back their decisions on tRump regime lawlessness. Even the 9-0 "facilitate" decision on the Abrego Garcia case nearly two month ago is ignored by DHS, and the man, along with 270 others, remains locked up in El Salvador — likely indefinitely.
And the Supremes are on a flight path to dump *Humphreys Executor*, codifying tRump's attacks on the "independent" agencies created by Congress, so all those lawsuits now in federal district courts in time will be decided for the regime and against the intent of Congress; so the message there is let the mass firings and destruction of dozens of federal agencies continue, because SCOTUS supports the "unitary executive" theory, albeit a fanciful and capricious interpretation of the theory.
Bottom line: it's tough being a federal judge and trying to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law when neither Congress nor SCOTUS are prepared to support judges' decisions.
Anyone who expects the courts to be much of a bulwark given the Roberts court (putting party first while ignoring the law since 2005) is simply a fool.
The administration by and by ignores court orders partly because POTUS is a mobster at heart who’s nearly never has obeyed authority and in no small part because the Roberts court has his back.
Agree with lots of your points M. As I always do. But call me a fool, I think the sub-SCOTUS judiciary will for the most part hold firm. Simply put- Trump et al pisses them off. What I keep repeating is we have to worry about what happens when this administration decides to ignore them altogether and not even trouble to show up for hearings and ignore rulings. Then the stuff really hits the fan.
What we get them is a variant of Morton's Fork applied to the executive/judiciary relationship. If the Executive gets its way too easily and often then it starts to simply ignore the courts. If the Courts stymie the executive too frequently, then the latter gets desperate and again ignores the courts since it's not getting what it wants. In each case we're in a constitutional crisis.
Oh, mostly I’m sure they’ll keep trying to block him. But the efficacy is limited by the Roberts court on brand support for Trump.
As for hearings (if you mean congressional), they’ll show for Republicans’ performative garbage, show and abuse or not show for Democrats’ hearings to whatever extent those would even be allowed — obviously with no repercussions.
He's making us all look like fools. He does whatever he wants, disregards any court or opposition, and moves ahead with his agenda of destroying our democracy. Pitiful and shameful.
Brilliant idea. The like category is way too narrow. I may like that someone said something but disagree with what it is they said. If vote for a "like in part' icon as the Supreme Court "concur in part" opinions.
Haven’t read Kate Shaw’s piece but odds are that she’s a touch restrained (and if she wasn’t, the Times edited it to be so) while Litman let’s say isn’t so inclined.
(Litman and Shaw are 2/3 of the Strict Scrutiny pod; essential listening re SCOTUS mostly, lower courts not so much. Full disclosure: I ship both Litman and Shaw, the former more so than the latter.)
I wonder if someone could make a copy of the plaque in honor of the capitol police, and we could display the throughout the country, on banners, hats, T shirts, in parks?
Watch out for Dan Bongino. If this administration can be likened to the Tudor courts, he is the modern day equivalent of Walsingham. Instead of persecuting Catholics and their sympathizers as did Walsingham, Bongino will harass and torment the opponents of his monarch, Trump. He is a man to be feared.
Fed District judges eventually will get the message that SCOTUS — except in increasingly rare instances — does NOT have their backs in many of the immigrant deportation cases, and to pare back their decisions on tRump regime lawlessness. Even the 9-0 "facilitate" decision on the Abrego Garcia case nearly two month ago is ignored by DHS, and the man, along with 270 others, remains locked up in El Salvador — likely indefinitely.
And the Supremes are on a flight path to dump *Humphreys Executor*, codifying tRump's attacks on the "independent" agencies created by Congress, so all those lawsuits now in federal district courts in time will be decided for the regime and against the intent of Congress; so the message there is let the mass firings and destruction of dozens of federal agencies continue, because SCOTUS supports the "unitary executive" theory, albeit a fanciful and capricious interpretation of the theory.
Bottom line: it's tough being a federal judge and trying to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law when neither Congress nor SCOTUS are prepared to support judges' decisions.
Exactly.
Anyone who expects the courts to be much of a bulwark given the Roberts court (putting party first while ignoring the law since 2005) is simply a fool.
The administration by and by ignores court orders partly because POTUS is a mobster at heart who’s nearly never has obeyed authority and in no small part because the Roberts court has his back.
Agree with lots of your points M. As I always do. But call me a fool, I think the sub-SCOTUS judiciary will for the most part hold firm. Simply put- Trump et al pisses them off. What I keep repeating is we have to worry about what happens when this administration decides to ignore them altogether and not even trouble to show up for hearings and ignore rulings. Then the stuff really hits the fan.
What we get them is a variant of Morton's Fork applied to the executive/judiciary relationship. If the Executive gets its way too easily and often then it starts to simply ignore the courts. If the Courts stymie the executive too frequently, then the latter gets desperate and again ignores the courts since it's not getting what it wants. In each case we're in a constitutional crisis.
Oh, mostly I’m sure they’ll keep trying to block him. But the efficacy is limited by the Roberts court on brand support for Trump.
As for hearings (if you mean congressional), they’ll show for Republicans’ performative garbage, show and abuse or not show for Democrats’ hearings to whatever extent those would even be allowed — obviously with no repercussions.
He's making us all look like fools. He does whatever he wants, disregards any court or opposition, and moves ahead with his agenda of destroying our democracy. Pitiful and shameful.
Perhaps we could adjust the "LIKE" icon to a "RESPECT" icon. ?? Daily struggle here with outrage and nausea on multiple levels, all at once.
Brilliant idea. The like category is way too narrow. I may like that someone said something but disagree with what it is they said. If vote for a "like in part' icon as the Supreme Court "concur in part" opinions.
Speaking of Wilcox, this from Prof. Leah Litman:
https://www.publicnotice.co/p/leah-litman-lawless-trump-v-wilcox
Haven’t read Kate Shaw’s piece but odds are that she’s a touch restrained (and if she wasn’t, the Times edited it to be so) while Litman let’s say isn’t so inclined.
(Litman and Shaw are 2/3 of the Strict Scrutiny pod; essential listening re SCOTUS mostly, lower courts not so much. Full disclosure: I ship both Litman and Shaw, the former more so than the latter.)
I wonder if someone could make a copy of the plaque in honor of the capitol police, and we could display the throughout the country, on banners, hats, T shirts, in parks?
Watch out for Dan Bongino. If this administration can be likened to the Tudor courts, he is the modern day equivalent of Walsingham. Instead of persecuting Catholics and their sympathizers as did Walsingham, Bongino will harass and torment the opponents of his monarch, Trump. He is a man to be feared.