The motivations of the Court are unclear to me and I don't want to indulge in conspiracy theories but it appears both the Court and Trump are figuratively clearing the decks in preparation for a situation where the Executive needs the latitude to act decisively and with a minimum of restraints. There is nothing internal to the U.S. that requires such preparation so we might guess it's something outside our borders. Is war coming?
Yes! Well-said! But remember, it was Roberts who ruled (Shelby County, 2013) that Texas was now “mature” enough to eliminate preclearance. Result? Bounty hunters okay for women wanting abortions. So, voting rights diminished, dark money okay (hey, its political speech!), immunity for dad.
One has to wonder whether this brave decision is akin to Snyder v. U. S. in which the court redefined bribery as gratuity (take that, Clarence Thomas critics!). Here, the Court’s saying, “Daddy, don’t fire us … please.”
So there can be no more civil servants in the executive branch, right? At all. They are all executive servants and thus effectively political appointees.
I have to say, Roberts has been driving this bus with detours but has never wavered in his intended destination. His mistake is pretending he can hold the court’s reputation apart from its lawless rulings. He doesn’t want it to look quite so captured as the Republican majority truly is.
But what makes him think Trump will be any more likely to respect unfavorable rulings when the majority keeps carrying water for the executive? Roberts has been steadily fueling the machine of the court’s coming irrelevance. See how that works out for him.
I keep hoping the constant denigrating of the courts by both Trutheet and action --just doing what is enjoined) will wake the Kourt up. But it seems to be Theory Über alles
The Post-Gazette article contains a scheme for choosing judges that is less susceptible to bias:
"To reduce the perception of political bias, appointments could be limited to two per presidential term.
"The initial panel could be composed of two presidential appointees and, say, eight temporary appointments from a randomly-selected pool of federal judges from District Courts and the Court of Appeals. They would return to their former positions following replacement by successive two-per-term appointees."
OK. Assume the executive has the only power to enforce the laws. Doesn't it then have a DUTY to do so? Can it take a law like the Civil Rights Act and simply fire anyone who might prosecute people for violating it? Can it ignore the Administrative Procedure Act too? Are the Supremes saying that any onus Congress puts on the President in enforcing the law is unconstitutional? Not just telling him to have some whiff of a cause to fire someone (just some someones, btw; they don't try with his traditionally partisan hires). But telling him that if, say, a store refuses to hire POC, he has to make sure that store follows the actual law? As opposing to saying that to do so is a matter of "illegal DEI?" If the law says insider trading is illegal, can the administration ignore a clear case of it? Is it within his executive powers to simply DECIDE that opposing Israel's war is ipso facto antisemitic?
And what does the end of Humprhrey's Executor do to things like the Impoundment Act? Will the Court BLESS his moving all Harvard's funding to open trade schools--like, well, Trump University?
I keep waiting for the Kourt to rule that because the First Amendment doesn't mention "President" and his rules, that he isn't bound by it.
Gangway, here comes the Unitary Executive version 5.0. Thanks so much, Roberts Court.
Amazing, if the Court wants to prop up a strongman, why Trump? Whiny, infantile, unmanly, fat—this is New America (or Russia West)?
The motivations of the Court are unclear to me and I don't want to indulge in conspiracy theories but it appears both the Court and Trump are figuratively clearing the decks in preparation for a situation where the Executive needs the latitude to act decisively and with a minimum of restraints. There is nothing internal to the U.S. that requires such preparation so we might guess it's something outside our borders. Is war coming?
Yes! Well-said! But remember, it was Roberts who ruled (Shelby County, 2013) that Texas was now “mature” enough to eliminate preclearance. Result? Bounty hunters okay for women wanting abortions. So, voting rights diminished, dark money okay (hey, its political speech!), immunity for dad.
One has to wonder whether this brave decision is akin to Snyder v. U. S. in which the court redefined bribery as gratuity (take that, Clarence Thomas critics!). Here, the Court’s saying, “Daddy, don’t fire us … please.”
Ah yes. Under Snyder, if the quid of the pimp-plane is letting Eric build a tower, then the plane is just a "tip."
A tip and a wink.
I find the court smelly. Old men smelly.
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/cruel-capriciously-smelly-supreme?r=3m1bs
So there can be no more civil servants in the executive branch, right? At all. They are all executive servants and thus effectively political appointees.
I have to say, Roberts has been driving this bus with detours but has never wavered in his intended destination. His mistake is pretending he can hold the court’s reputation apart from its lawless rulings. He doesn’t want it to look quite so captured as the Republican majority truly is.
But what makes him think Trump will be any more likely to respect unfavorable rulings when the majority keeps carrying water for the executive? Roberts has been steadily fueling the machine of the court’s coming irrelevance. See how that works out for him.
I keep hoping the constant denigrating of the courts by both Trutheet and action --just doing what is enjoined) will wake the Kourt up. But it seems to be Theory Über alles
I recently had some thoughts about how to keep the Supreme Court a little more level-headed, i.e., establishing a constitutional court (P.S., it doesn't seem so "radical", but probably won't happen under this Congress): https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/guest-columns/2024/12/10/roberts-supreme-court-bias-partisan-rightwing-citizens-united-dobbs-bruce-wilder/stories/202412100005
I would love to read it, but it is behind a paywall.
I'll see if I can fix that
Still comes up behind a paywall. I am not high tech and I am not on Facebook.
Sorry, not sure what I can do about that. But in the meantime, here's an earlier article I wrote on the same subject. https://brucewilder.substack.com/p/does-the-united-states-need-a-constitutional
The Post-Gazette article contains a scheme for choosing judges that is less susceptible to bias:
"To reduce the perception of political bias, appointments could be limited to two per presidential term.
"The initial panel could be composed of two presidential appointees and, say, eight temporary appointments from a randomly-selected pool of federal judges from District Courts and the Court of Appeals. They would return to their former positions following replacement by successive two-per-term appointees."
Thank you Bruce. I was able to read your article and found it very informative.
Excellent substack post. Doesn't look like the scheme would require an Amendment. All of what's needed is there.
OK. Assume the executive has the only power to enforce the laws. Doesn't it then have a DUTY to do so? Can it take a law like the Civil Rights Act and simply fire anyone who might prosecute people for violating it? Can it ignore the Administrative Procedure Act too? Are the Supremes saying that any onus Congress puts on the President in enforcing the law is unconstitutional? Not just telling him to have some whiff of a cause to fire someone (just some someones, btw; they don't try with his traditionally partisan hires). But telling him that if, say, a store refuses to hire POC, he has to make sure that store follows the actual law? As opposing to saying that to do so is a matter of "illegal DEI?" If the law says insider trading is illegal, can the administration ignore a clear case of it? Is it within his executive powers to simply DECIDE that opposing Israel's war is ipso facto antisemitic?
And what does the end of Humprhrey's Executor do to things like the Impoundment Act? Will the Court BLESS his moving all Harvard's funding to open trade schools--like, well, Trump University?
I keep waiting for the Kourt to rule that because the First Amendment doesn't mention "President" and his rules, that he isn't bound by it.