Federal judges, military lawyers, and DOJ investigators all point to unlawful orders across Trump’s government — validating the six lawmakers he threatened with death.
Thanks to the “corrupt, illegitimate super-majority on the Supreme Court” (Mary Trump’s frequent phrase), I doubt that Trump will ever suffer consequences - though I wish I believed in hell, because the thought of eternal damnation does offer some cheer. But, Miles, can others in his regime be prosecuted? If they are convicted, could he just pardon them and reinstate them to their previous positions? (I can’t believe we are even having to ask questions like this!)
The Supreme Court is ruling not on the constitution but on their personal beliefs, and the same court that brought in all of this dark money via Citizens United has also ruled that the executive is immune from criminal prosecution.
This is a shame and we deserve better!
The billionaires have bought the highest court and have bought the politicians, and the politicians are using that money to enrich themselves and their donors at the expense of the those in most need. The court members are taking money and also profiteering off of their positions.
This is unsustainable and reforms are needed ASAP.
The Citizens United ruling is the root cause of what we are seeing .
We need Supreme Court reforms!
The Constitution does not specify how the Supreme Court should be formed, so we should abolish the current court and establish a new court that will be made up of one member from each of the U.S. Courts of Appeals Federal!
Definitely need to have more rules about the use of the shadow docket. If SCOTUS is too busy to hear all these cases in depth, that would be an argument to expand the Supreme Court and have a subset of members hearing each case, as in district courts, with a possible appeal to the full court. That would hopefully reduce the need for the shadow docket. The shadow docket should be restricted to making rulings that would stop immediate harm, and a brief rationale needs to be issued publicly. If harm cannot be determined without a full hearing, then there should be some mechanism for convening an emergency limited hearing on which of proposed actions (e.g., supporting or revoking a temporary restraining order) should be taken until the complete hearing on the merits of the case.
Does that make sense to those with expertise in the legal system (unlike me)?
That is most likely the rub. Anyone in the admin knows they can do whatever they want as long as it's in service of the king and they will be awarded with a pardon if need be. The Founders got most things right but they missed on this one - a loophole that allows a despot unbelievable power which cannot be checked by anyone short of impeachment.
Pastor Martin Niemöller penned the well-known poem First They Came after the end of World War II. In the poem he wrote that because he did not speak out when the Gestapo came for others, there was no one left to speak out when they came for him It’s beautiful literature, but not completely accurate. Niemöller did speak out. They did come for him. He spent most of the war years in concentration camps because German society was so warped by fear that no one ever stood up to Hitler or stood up for his victims.
When Trump comes for U.S. military veterans who are now serving in Congress and no one in the (lower case gop) Gutless Obsequious Puppets party stands up to him or stands up for them, who will be left to stand up for any of the rest of us when Trump's Black Marias show up at our doors?
Indeed, the good Pastor (although he was a U-boot officer during WW1 rewarded with an Iron Cross) was a "guest" in Sachsenhausen and Dachau from 1938 till his liberation by US troops in 1945.
I'm glad people remember Pastor Niemöller. For he is an example of a person who first embrace the bad. He was in support of the Austrian corporal until that guy started attacking churches and the clergy opening his eyes to the bad and consequently paid a heavy price (8 years in concentration camps).
Federal judges are holding the administration’s feet to the fire while the S.Ct. drags most everything down by granting stays of lower court judges’ decisions, arguing that the appellate process has to work it’s way back to them, the justices.
The tariffs case, which I would argue will be decided before Christmas (total speculation on my part), could give Trump his worst blow to date in trying to achieve his goals illegally and unconstitutionally. We’ll see.
The evidence is mounting that so many WH actions/directives are illegal. What will it take for some Republican(s) in Congress to have a Barry Goldwater moment and meet with Trump to tell him this is a bridge too far?
“Federal courts will continue reviewing the illegality of Trump’s orders.”. First glance I read that as “reviling”. This being of course, the next step. Or already.
Thanks to the “corrupt, illegitimate super-majority on the Supreme Court” (Mary Trump’s frequent phrase), I doubt that Trump will ever suffer consequences - though I wish I believed in hell, because the thought of eternal damnation does offer some cheer. But, Miles, can others in his regime be prosecuted? If they are convicted, could he just pardon them and reinstate them to their previous positions? (I can’t believe we are even having to ask questions like this!)
Here is my proposal!
Supreme Court Reforms
The Supreme Court is ruling not on the constitution but on their personal beliefs, and the same court that brought in all of this dark money via Citizens United has also ruled that the executive is immune from criminal prosecution.
This is a shame and we deserve better!
The billionaires have bought the highest court and have bought the politicians, and the politicians are using that money to enrich themselves and their donors at the expense of the those in most need. The court members are taking money and also profiteering off of their positions.
This is unsustainable and reforms are needed ASAP.
The Citizens United ruling is the root cause of what we are seeing .
We need Supreme Court reforms!
The Constitution does not specify how the Supreme Court should be formed, so we should abolish the current court and establish a new court that will be made up of one member from each of the U.S. Courts of Appeals Federal!
https://theharvardpoliticalreview.com/supreme-court-shadow-docket/
Definitely need to have more rules about the use of the shadow docket. If SCOTUS is too busy to hear all these cases in depth, that would be an argument to expand the Supreme Court and have a subset of members hearing each case, as in district courts, with a possible appeal to the full court. That would hopefully reduce the need for the shadow docket. The shadow docket should be restricted to making rulings that would stop immediate harm, and a brief rationale needs to be issued publicly. If harm cannot be determined without a full hearing, then there should be some mechanism for convening an emergency limited hearing on which of proposed actions (e.g., supporting or revoking a temporary restraining order) should be taken until the complete hearing on the merits of the case.
Does that make sense to those with expertise in the legal system (unlike me)?
That is most likely the rub. Anyone in the admin knows they can do whatever they want as long as it's in service of the king and they will be awarded with a pardon if need be. The Founders got most things right but they missed on this one - a loophole that allows a despot unbelievable power which cannot be checked by anyone short of impeachment.
Unbelievable--in any circumstances, but especially from the Insurrectionist-in-Chief.
Pastor Martin Niemöller penned the well-known poem First They Came after the end of World War II. In the poem he wrote that because he did not speak out when the Gestapo came for others, there was no one left to speak out when they came for him It’s beautiful literature, but not completely accurate. Niemöller did speak out. They did come for him. He spent most of the war years in concentration camps because German society was so warped by fear that no one ever stood up to Hitler or stood up for his victims.
When Trump comes for U.S. military veterans who are now serving in Congress and no one in the (lower case gop) Gutless Obsequious Puppets party stands up to him or stands up for them, who will be left to stand up for any of the rest of us when Trump's Black Marias show up at our doors?
Indeed, the good Pastor (although he was a U-boot officer during WW1 rewarded with an Iron Cross) was a "guest" in Sachsenhausen and Dachau from 1938 till his liberation by US troops in 1945.
I'm glad people remember Pastor Niemöller. For he is an example of a person who first embrace the bad. He was in support of the Austrian corporal until that guy started attacking churches and the clergy opening his eyes to the bad and consequently paid a heavy price (8 years in concentration camps).
Lesson? Fight trump with all you got. Today.
Federal judges are holding the administration’s feet to the fire while the S.Ct. drags most everything down by granting stays of lower court judges’ decisions, arguing that the appellate process has to work it’s way back to them, the justices.
The tariffs case, which I would argue will be decided before Christmas (total speculation on my part), could give Trump his worst blow to date in trying to achieve his goals illegally and unconstitutionally. We’ll see.
The evidence is mounting that so many WH actions/directives are illegal. What will it take for some Republican(s) in Congress to have a Barry Goldwater moment and meet with Trump to tell him this is a bridge too far?
Gee, it almost seems like he doesn’t believe the laws of this country apply to him or anything he does as President…
Thank you Roberts' not-so-supreme 6-of-the-9ers?
Thanks Miles.
Excellent.
“Federal courts will continue reviewing the illegality of Trump’s orders.”. First glance I read that as “reviling”. This being of course, the next step. Or already.
🎯❤️✅
Trump's not so merry bunch doesn't do "legal".