Is anyone compiling a list of the attorneys who are working on behalf of this lawless regime? We need a complete list for future consequences even if the consequences are limited to shunning.
I'd agree with you but with the proviso that a defense counsel doesn't share in the guilt of the client she represents. It is the foundation of our whole system of legal representation.
We want both. Unprincipled lawyers who violate the code of professional responsibility and ethics, thereby eroding the rule of law, are as guilty of destroying our constitutional republic as the policy makers.
The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the law and judicial procedure. It sometimes fails, as with the separate but equal doctrine, but those failures are increasing with this particular court. Witness the Dobbs decision and the so-called presidential immunity decision. These flawed rulings have real world consequences for real people. Too many of the six conservative justices served in the executive branch before their judicial appointments, and they lean toward giving it unfettered authority in direct violation of the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution. They also approach the law as a theoretical matter divorced from its effect on human beings.
And as we have seen, there is only one remedy for addressing the fact that he regime does not obey or adhere to the rule of law, and that is to impeach Trump - and that won't happen unless the Republicans lose their majority in the midterms.
I'll never understand the hold Trump has over these six justices. I suppose it could be any Republican, but they seem particularly deferential and obsequious to him in particular, to where we get shadow docket rulings like this. The final paragraph is key - every ruling like this further degrades our democracy and moves us closer and closer to full authoritarianism. We'll reach a point - sooner rather than later I suspect - where they no longer even bother to pretend to care. And the court will cheer them on regardless.
I don't think he has a "hold" on them, but that he chose them in the first place because of their core beliefs. Remember, Trump is also heavily influenced by the people around him, and they are the real "brains of the outfit." Those people knew exactly who Trump should nominate to the courts, and Trump did it.
A curious outcome: SCOTUS issues a minimal decision, in effect requiring the courts to suss out legality … then chooses to ignore at will the lower court’s findings. Circular “justice” that will leave the deportee in an extended purgatory of worry.
Stripped of all the hyperlegalities with which the government sought to cloud the case, at issue was whether the government suffered irreparable harm whenever a court sought to restrain their uninhibited action in legally deportable aliens, despite relevant due process concerns. The court ruled, and shockingly so, that they did and that courts of equity had no business trying to provide relief in cases of this nature. This ruling joins Dobbs and Trump vs U.S. in the long line of deplorable Roberts Court decisions. I am reproducing Justice Sotomayor closing remarks from her dissent (joined by Elena Kagan and Katanji Jackson Brown):
"The Due Process Clause represents “the principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 646 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines that foundational principle. Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable. Respectfully, but regretfully, I dissent."
Sotomayor mentioned in her dissent a very old 1947 case, Precision Instruments that established that a plaintiff appearing before a court of equitable remedy in a matter, must not itself have dirty hands in the matter. Our government has very dirty hands in DVD vs DHS.
It just occurred to me while reading this post that the darkest evil in the Trump regime isn't even the monsters who are doing this to their fellow human beings, but are the millions of Americans who support this horror. I mean, it really, really hit me. I'm crying. I don't want to be an American anymore.
Is anyone compiling a list of the attorneys who are working on behalf of this lawless regime? We need a complete list for future consequences even if the consequences are limited to shunning.
I'd agree with you but with the proviso that a defense counsel doesn't share in the guilt of the client she represents. It is the foundation of our whole system of legal representation.
They are responsible for upholding the rule of law and due process procedures. That is what they are flaunting. And for that, they alone are guilty.
You don't want the lawyers. You want the names of all the people involved in forming this horrific "policy." They are the Nazis.
We want both. Unprincipled lawyers who violate the code of professional responsibility and ethics, thereby eroding the rule of law, are as guilty of destroying our constitutional republic as the policy makers.
The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the law and judicial procedure. It sometimes fails, as with the separate but equal doctrine, but those failures are increasing with this particular court. Witness the Dobbs decision and the so-called presidential immunity decision. These flawed rulings have real world consequences for real people. Too many of the six conservative justices served in the executive branch before their judicial appointments, and they lean toward giving it unfettered authority in direct violation of the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution. They also approach the law as a theoretical matter divorced from its effect on human beings.
Your last sentence says it all unfortunately.
Yes! SCOTUS and Trump wants to take us back to the Fifties … but without (they think) mention of racism. Too inclusive, I guess.
And as we have seen, there is only one remedy for addressing the fact that he regime does not obey or adhere to the rule of law, and that is to impeach Trump - and that won't happen unless the Republicans lose their majority in the midterms.
I heard on the BBC news that a judge in Costa Rica has ordered the release of the detainees there, with social services to assist
them.
Thank you Costa Rica!
Thank you Costa Rica!
I'll never understand the hold Trump has over these six justices. I suppose it could be any Republican, but they seem particularly deferential and obsequious to him in particular, to where we get shadow docket rulings like this. The final paragraph is key - every ruling like this further degrades our democracy and moves us closer and closer to full authoritarianism. We'll reach a point - sooner rather than later I suspect - where they no longer even bother to pretend to care. And the court will cheer them on regardless.
I don't think he has a "hold" on them, but that he chose them in the first place because of their core beliefs. Remember, Trump is also heavily influenced by the people around him, and they are the real "brains of the outfit." Those people knew exactly who Trump should nominate to the courts, and Trump did it.
A curious outcome: SCOTUS issues a minimal decision, in effect requiring the courts to suss out legality … then chooses to ignore at will the lower court’s findings. Circular “justice” that will leave the deportee in an extended purgatory of worry.
SCOTUS is bringing the Democracy down, giving Felon 47 a helping hand. Grotesque 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Stripped of all the hyperlegalities with which the government sought to cloud the case, at issue was whether the government suffered irreparable harm whenever a court sought to restrain their uninhibited action in legally deportable aliens, despite relevant due process concerns. The court ruled, and shockingly so, that they did and that courts of equity had no business trying to provide relief in cases of this nature. This ruling joins Dobbs and Trump vs U.S. in the long line of deplorable Roberts Court decisions. I am reproducing Justice Sotomayor closing remarks from her dissent (joined by Elena Kagan and Katanji Jackson Brown):
"The Due Process Clause represents “the principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 646 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines that foundational principle. Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable. Respectfully, but regretfully, I dissent."
Sotomayor mentioned in her dissent a very old 1947 case, Precision Instruments that established that a plaintiff appearing before a court of equitable remedy in a matter, must not itself have dirty hands in the matter. Our government has very dirty hands in DVD vs DHS.
SCOTUS conservatives are a groveling, corrupt, power-hungry disgrace.
Darn brown folk, thinking the U.S. is a haven—send ‘em back to Uzbekistan! Citizen? Undocumented? Send ‘em back to Saudi Arabia!
It just occurred to me while reading this post that the darkest evil in the Trump regime isn't even the monsters who are doing this to their fellow human beings, but are the millions of Americans who support this horror. I mean, it really, really hit me. I'm crying. I don't want to be an American anymore.