Thanks, Lisa. We have a major conundrum in Minnesota. The total disregard for humanity and the rule of law is just unbelievable to me. It’s horrifying to not have the shooters of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and all others immediately arrested and jailed. It’s even worse to be blatantly lied to by the people responsible for creating this situation.
I'd be interested to hear from a legal historian if this Supreme Court is the most mendaciously politically biased in history. I'd guess it would give other corrupt Supreme Courts in history a run for
The only way to stop this is to get a majority in the Congress of non MAGA- indeed Democrats and Independents. Everything points to the coming election and the work that needs to be done after these two years of hell.
One possibility is to force a very short time-line for litigation. The violence is certainly grounds for extraordinary speed. The AG should be able to handle speed, either with current staff or contracted outside counsel. DOJ doesn't have any extra capacity.
Except this is the Trump administration—it doesn’t care about violence (except against white Christians), it prefers it. And Trump always believes he personally can override any criticism—Access Hollywood, for example.
One thought for Minnesota's lawyers: define the federal operation as a conspiracy against rights. There are over, written policies that violate the Constitution, for example a policy permitting warrantless entries into homes. The significant pattern and practice of disregarding court orders. Pattern and practice of violence, illegal detention, illegal arrest, brutality, first amendment suppression, and on and on.
It is a pattern of criminality. And it defines the entire operation.
That's the weak point that crushes the federal argument that it has the authority to act without state interference under the Supremacy Clause: it is not enforcing supreme laws, but rather committing a giant crime.
Do republicans have enough ethical members to change policy? Probably not. Here's one example.
My rep, Juan Ciscomani, is a naturalized citizen. His father received a visa to drive a church bus. His wife's parents crossed the border illegally several times, per Juan's BIL, who is an ASU professor.
Juan has said nothing anout ICE's tactics. He pulled up the ladder after he climbed it.
From the AZ Daily Star:
"Republican U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani is facing calls to share more details about his family’s immigration journey, and accusations of hypocrisy, from a source close to home: his brother-in-law.
Arizona State University Latin American history professor Alexander Aviña, whose sister Laura is married to Ciscomani, says he used to have a warm relationship with the couple, despite their political differences.
That changed during Ciscomani’s first congressional run, in October 2021, when Ciscomani’s first commercial showed him walking along the southern border, echoing Donald Trump’s calls to finish the wall.
“President Trump had the right approach to border security,” Ciscomani said in the ad. “This administration has left our border completely undefended and made our communities unsafe.”
For Aviña, who says he’s an independent progressive, the endorsement of Trump’s “fear-mongering” rhetoric was shocking — especially because Aviña’s parents, who are Ciscomani’s in-laws, came to the U.S. from Michoacán, Mexico as undocumented immigrants in the 1970s, seeking economic opportunity.
Aviña recalled texting a screenshot of the ad to his sister, asking, “What is this? You guys are attacking my parents,” he said. “And that was pretty much the last time I heard from them.”
Since then, Aviña has gone public with his criticism of Ciscomani, frustrated with the lack of detail of how his family immigrated legally to the U.S., even as their journey has become a centerpiece of Ciscomani’s two congressional campaigns, and a springboard to criticize migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border today, Aviña said.
In a January post on X, formerly Twitter, Aviña re-posted a video of Ciscomani giving a speech at the border, calling Ciscomani an “anti-migrant migrant.”
“Bro, you married the daughter of proud undocumented migrants — my parents,” Aviña wrote.
The only way that we have a chance for Congress to fix ANYYTHING that is broken is for the Dems to win the midterms in a landslide. Based on the results of the November gubernatorial elections in VA and NJ, the stunning win in the TX state Senate race last weekend among others are hopeful signs. The lunatic madman's approval ratings have been crashing for months.
Granted, the old adage "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" must always be kept in mind. A perfect example is the predicted MAGAt red wave for the 2022 midterms that only resulted in a 222-213 MAGAt majority in the House.
With the majority of the public turning against the actions of the current regime/junta, a brighter day may come in November. The survival of the nation depends on it.
"Minnesota is in the Eighth Circuit, which is now a deeply conservative court with only one Democratic appointee."
In a functioning world, "conservative court" would be like "anti-vax nurse". A contradiction in terms.
Unfortunately we don't live in that world, but if the country manages to survive until 2029 and a democratic president gets into office, one of the first things they need to do is remove every single fucking Republican appointed federal judge along with the unqualified, illegitimate federalist society hacks on the supreme court.
What does "zeal" for one side or the other have to do with forming a reasoned opinion based on facts, law and precedent? Judge Menendez could have chosen to use the power and discretion inherent in her role as "judge" to understand what's at stake and faithfully execute her responsibiities. For the upcoming Super Bowl, the "Supreme" oddsmakers, unlike the Supreme Court, are supposed to judge in favor of one side or the other. Fans agree or disagree, and place their bets accordingly. The football players competitively participate regardless of the odds. The outcome should be determined by the players, not the refs.They certainly don't take a knee like Judge Menendez. And if she gets overruled, well, spilled beer is part of the action.
Perfect pitch. That leaves us contemplating the 'sickness pervading US society' that 'explains/excuses' the complete abandonment of 340+M people to -- at a whim -- murder and destruction.
How does it help at all to say that it's "true" that "the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants"? This truly is the time for people to be learning what our Constitution actually says and means. In multiple respects it's far from true that SCOTUS justices were given the power to do whatever they want.
Article VI of our Constitution established and emphasized that all judges (all public servants) everywhere are bound by our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution. That's the whole point of declaring the foregoing to be "the supreme Law of the Land." All SCOTUS justices are bound by our Constitution and federal laws.
Every SCOTUS justice also is bound by the same oaths as every other federal judge. The two oaths of federal judges are prescribed by Article VI of our Constitution and federal law. Article VI emphasizes that all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support [our] Constitution." 5 U.S.C. Section 3331 emphasizes that ALL federal employees must "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and must "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution. 28 U.S.C. Section 453 emphasizes that all federal judges must "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich" and "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties [ ] under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Article III established and emphasized that all federal judges were given the power ONLY to say how our "Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties" governed particular "Cases" or "Controversies" over which their court had jurisdiction.
There's no good that can come from pretending that SCOTUS justices are equivalent to clergy of some unconstitutional establishment of religion. They make mistakes and they even knowingly violate their oaths and our Constitution. When SCOTUS justices violate their oaths and our Constitution, they're no better positioned than anyone else who does so.
Our Constitution preserved federalism (expressly reserving powers to states) and imposed on state officials the duty to support our Constitution precisely to protect the people from abusive purported public servants in the national government.
Theory, precedent, and the Constitution are of only limited value here. The Supreme Court has the power it does today because of the Bush II appointments (Roberts and Alito) and McConnell's manipulations that got us Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Thanks to the Electoral College, the Citizens United decision, and millions upon millions of ignorant, racist voters, we got Trump I. I could go on, and on and on, but you get the idea.
Susanna, I think I understand how you feel. But I think you've got things backwards. You think "[t]he Supreme Court has the power it does today because of" some "appointments." How can appointments give SCOTUS power?
You think "[t]heory, precedent, and the Constitution are of only limited value here." But those are the true sources of the power that SCOTUS actually has. They only way to truly appreciate the limits of the power of SCOTUS justices (and anybody else governed by our Constitution) is to know and respect (and make them respect) the "[t]heory, precedent, and the Constitution" that govern them.
Thanks, Lisa. We have a major conundrum in Minnesota. The total disregard for humanity and the rule of law is just unbelievable to me. It’s horrifying to not have the shooters of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and all others immediately arrested and jailed. It’s even worse to be blatantly lied to by the people responsible for creating this situation.
I'd be interested to hear from a legal historian if this Supreme Court is the most mendaciously politically biased in history. I'd guess it would give other corrupt Supreme Courts in history a run for
Well if it is, what the hell can be done about it? SCOTUS seems to be the real Teflon branch..
A historian might also review SCOTUS nominees’ testifying before Congress.
The only way to stop this is to get a majority in the Congress of non MAGA- indeed Democrats and Independents. Everything points to the coming election and the work that needs to be done after these two years of hell.
Courts can’t stop … but they can stall. Congress, even Democrats, won’t, can’t, fix until there is majority enough to overturn a veto.
One possibility is to force a very short time-line for litigation. The violence is certainly grounds for extraordinary speed. The AG should be able to handle speed, either with current staff or contracted outside counsel. DOJ doesn't have any extra capacity.
Except this is the Trump administration—it doesn’t care about violence (except against white Christians), it prefers it. And Trump always believes he personally can override any criticism—Access Hollywood, for example.
we are working on that.. and Trump is helping. Unfortunately this is very painful, but it's also alarming people.
One thought for Minnesota's lawyers: define the federal operation as a conspiracy against rights. There are over, written policies that violate the Constitution, for example a policy permitting warrantless entries into homes. The significant pattern and practice of disregarding court orders. Pattern and practice of violence, illegal detention, illegal arrest, brutality, first amendment suppression, and on and on.
It is a pattern of criminality. And it defines the entire operation.
That's the weak point that crushes the federal argument that it has the authority to act without state interference under the Supremacy Clause: it is not enforcing supreme laws, but rather committing a giant crime.
Do republicans have enough ethical members to change policy? Probably not. Here's one example.
My rep, Juan Ciscomani, is a naturalized citizen. His father received a visa to drive a church bus. His wife's parents crossed the border illegally several times, per Juan's BIL, who is an ASU professor.
Juan has said nothing anout ICE's tactics. He pulled up the ladder after he climbed it.
From the AZ Daily Star:
"Republican U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani is facing calls to share more details about his family’s immigration journey, and accusations of hypocrisy, from a source close to home: his brother-in-law.
Arizona State University Latin American history professor Alexander Aviña, whose sister Laura is married to Ciscomani, says he used to have a warm relationship with the couple, despite their political differences.
That changed during Ciscomani’s first congressional run, in October 2021, when Ciscomani’s first commercial showed him walking along the southern border, echoing Donald Trump’s calls to finish the wall.
“President Trump had the right approach to border security,” Ciscomani said in the ad. “This administration has left our border completely undefended and made our communities unsafe.”
For Aviña, who says he’s an independent progressive, the endorsement of Trump’s “fear-mongering” rhetoric was shocking — especially because Aviña’s parents, who are Ciscomani’s in-laws, came to the U.S. from Michoacán, Mexico as undocumented immigrants in the 1970s, seeking economic opportunity.
Aviña recalled texting a screenshot of the ad to his sister, asking, “What is this? You guys are attacking my parents,” he said. “And that was pretty much the last time I heard from them.”
Since then, Aviña has gone public with his criticism of Ciscomani, frustrated with the lack of detail of how his family immigrated legally to the U.S., even as their journey has become a centerpiece of Ciscomani’s two congressional campaigns, and a springboard to criticize migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border today, Aviña said.
In a January post on X, formerly Twitter, Aviña re-posted a video of Ciscomani giving a speech at the border, calling Ciscomani an “anti-migrant migrant.”
“Bro, you married the daughter of proud undocumented migrants — my parents,” Aviña wrote.
Sorry, Paywall: https://tucson.com/news/local/subscriber/us-rep-juan-ciscomani-tucson-arizona-brother-in-law-blasts-border-positions-seeks-details-familys-migration-pathway-from-mexico/article_077771ea-801d-11ef-8408-3f291bb37431.html
The only way that we have a chance for Congress to fix ANYYTHING that is broken is for the Dems to win the midterms in a landslide. Based on the results of the November gubernatorial elections in VA and NJ, the stunning win in the TX state Senate race last weekend among others are hopeful signs. The lunatic madman's approval ratings have been crashing for months.
Granted, the old adage "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" must always be kept in mind. A perfect example is the predicted MAGAt red wave for the 2022 midterms that only resulted in a 222-213 MAGAt majority in the House.
With the majority of the public turning against the actions of the current regime/junta, a brighter day may come in November. The survival of the nation depends on it.
"Minnesota is in the Eighth Circuit, which is now a deeply conservative court with only one Democratic appointee."
In a functioning world, "conservative court" would be like "anti-vax nurse". A contradiction in terms.
Unfortunately we don't live in that world, but if the country manages to survive until 2029 and a democratic president gets into office, one of the first things they need to do is remove every single fucking Republican appointed federal judge along with the unqualified, illegitimate federalist society hacks on the supreme court.
Thank you for this! I think I’m starting to get a handle on Menendez’ ruling.
What does "zeal" for one side or the other have to do with forming a reasoned opinion based on facts, law and precedent? Judge Menendez could have chosen to use the power and discretion inherent in her role as "judge" to understand what's at stake and faithfully execute her responsibiities. For the upcoming Super Bowl, the "Supreme" oddsmakers, unlike the Supreme Court, are supposed to judge in favor of one side or the other. Fans agree or disagree, and place their bets accordingly. The football players competitively participate regardless of the odds. The outcome should be determined by the players, not the refs.They certainly don't take a knee like Judge Menendez. And if she gets overruled, well, spilled beer is part of the action.
Perfect pitch. That leaves us contemplating the 'sickness pervading US society' that 'explains/excuses' the complete abandonment of 340+M people to -- at a whim -- murder and destruction.
How does it help at all to say that it's "true" that "the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants"? This truly is the time for people to be learning what our Constitution actually says and means. In multiple respects it's far from true that SCOTUS justices were given the power to do whatever they want.
Article VI of our Constitution established and emphasized that all judges (all public servants) everywhere are bound by our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution. That's the whole point of declaring the foregoing to be "the supreme Law of the Land." All SCOTUS justices are bound by our Constitution and federal laws.
Every SCOTUS justice also is bound by the same oaths as every other federal judge. The two oaths of federal judges are prescribed by Article VI of our Constitution and federal law. Article VI emphasizes that all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support [our] Constitution." 5 U.S.C. Section 3331 emphasizes that ALL federal employees must "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and must "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution. 28 U.S.C. Section 453 emphasizes that all federal judges must "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich" and "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties [ ] under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Article III established and emphasized that all federal judges were given the power ONLY to say how our "Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties" governed particular "Cases" or "Controversies" over which their court had jurisdiction.
There's no good that can come from pretending that SCOTUS justices are equivalent to clergy of some unconstitutional establishment of religion. They make mistakes and they even knowingly violate their oaths and our Constitution. When SCOTUS justices violate their oaths and our Constitution, they're no better positioned than anyone else who does so.
Our Constitution preserved federalism (expressly reserving powers to states) and imposed on state officials the duty to support our Constitution precisely to protect the people from abusive purported public servants in the national government.
Theory, precedent, and the Constitution are of only limited value here. The Supreme Court has the power it does today because of the Bush II appointments (Roberts and Alito) and McConnell's manipulations that got us Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Thanks to the Electoral College, the Citizens United decision, and millions upon millions of ignorant, racist voters, we got Trump I. I could go on, and on and on, but you get the idea.
Susanna, I think I understand how you feel. But I think you've got things backwards. You think "[t]he Supreme Court has the power it does today because of" some "appointments." How can appointments give SCOTUS power?
You think "[t]heory, precedent, and the Constitution are of only limited value here." But those are the true sources of the power that SCOTUS actually has. They only way to truly appreciate the limits of the power of SCOTUS justices (and anybody else governed by our Constitution) is to know and respect (and make them respect) the "[t]heory, precedent, and the Constitution" that govern them.