Unless you are consistently reading Joyce Vance's sub stack Civil Discourse as well as One First, the sub stack on the Supreme Court, you do not know the details of what has happened in the interim. Neither of the sub stacks would agree with your assessment.
Unless you are consistently reading Joyce Vance's sub stack Civil Discourse as well as One First, the sub stack on the Supreme Court, you do not know the details of what has happened in the interim. Neither of the sub stacks would agree with your assessment.
The details of what has happened in the interim are in the published opinions. I do not need to read your particular favorite substacks to understand how unparalleled this situation is. Ordinarily, judicial bodies have a high regard for consistency (as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, “A ruling should not only speak to the parties before the court, but to the thousands of parties who will not need to go to court if they understand how a court would rule”) and therefore only depart from precedents if there is an argument that the precedents derive from a serious misunderstanding of the applicable legal principles: often framed in “originalist” or “textualist” styles of argument. In a case like Trump v. Anderson the Court invented a requirement that Congress determine if someone took part in an insurrection: no precedent case applying the cause had imposed such a requirement; the text does not say that (rather, that if someone has been blocked as an insurrectionist, Congress can overrule the determination); and the intent of the drafters was also not considered. The immunity decision, of course, is more frightening because it goes against not just the precedent of our entire history, but against the intentions of the 1776 revolution itself.
Are you claiming that you have read every Supreme Court decision regarding Trump starting in 2020? Your judicial comments are so generalized that I my powers of belief fail.
I am concerned about the cases involving the scope of Trump's powers. He should never have been allowed to profit from the Presidency, and he should never have been allowed to run again (if you punch the referee you are ejected from the game), nor should he be immune from any criminal charges. I am also concerned that in such cases, SCOTUS no longer even pretends to act as a judicial body. In some other cases also (Dobbs in particular), SCOTUS has set aside any concern for precedent without making anything like a reasoned argument from text or intent. And of course there is also the unparalleled level of naked corruption, and the ruling legalizing political bribery to extend this corruption to other institutions. You are not addressing any of this.
What? You mean Dobbs quoting a medieval witch-killer is not a reasoned argument? Who knew? How the F did Roberts ever allow that to see the light of day?
I read Joyce Vance every day. However, the fact that the courts are nominally still functional (Cannon and Kacsmaryk aside), is no guarantee that the situation will remain the same six months from now.
You're right, the past is no guarantee of the future, but Chief Justice Roberts knows that he will be cursed for the next 500 years in the history books if he allows the US Constitution to fall.
He may indeed be cursed. But that should have been ensured when Citizens United was decided under his leadership. SCOTUS' rulings seem to be becoming more egregious all the time. As I mentioned above, Dobbs, Bruen, Snyder (bribes = gratuities), and Trump, as just a few examples, seem to indicate that neither Roberts nor his right-wing cohorts gives a rat's butt about how history sees them. They'd rather have power and money in this incarnation.
Besides, the blame for the fall of the Constitution can slways be laid at mango man's door.
Unless you are consistently reading Joyce Vance's sub stack Civil Discourse as well as One First, the sub stack on the Supreme Court, you do not know the details of what has happened in the interim. Neither of the sub stacks would agree with your assessment.
https://www.stevevladeck.com/
https://joycevance.substack.com/
The details of what has happened in the interim are in the published opinions. I do not need to read your particular favorite substacks to understand how unparalleled this situation is. Ordinarily, judicial bodies have a high regard for consistency (as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, “A ruling should not only speak to the parties before the court, but to the thousands of parties who will not need to go to court if they understand how a court would rule”) and therefore only depart from precedents if there is an argument that the precedents derive from a serious misunderstanding of the applicable legal principles: often framed in “originalist” or “textualist” styles of argument. In a case like Trump v. Anderson the Court invented a requirement that Congress determine if someone took part in an insurrection: no precedent case applying the cause had imposed such a requirement; the text does not say that (rather, that if someone has been blocked as an insurrectionist, Congress can overrule the determination); and the intent of the drafters was also not considered. The immunity decision, of course, is more frightening because it goes against not just the precedent of our entire history, but against the intentions of the 1776 revolution itself.
Are you claiming that you have read every Supreme Court decision regarding Trump starting in 2020? Your judicial comments are so generalized that I my powers of belief fail.
I am concerned about the cases involving the scope of Trump's powers. He should never have been allowed to profit from the Presidency, and he should never have been allowed to run again (if you punch the referee you are ejected from the game), nor should he be immune from any criminal charges. I am also concerned that in such cases, SCOTUS no longer even pretends to act as a judicial body. In some other cases also (Dobbs in particular), SCOTUS has set aside any concern for precedent without making anything like a reasoned argument from text or intent. And of course there is also the unparalleled level of naked corruption, and the ruling legalizing political bribery to extend this corruption to other institutions. You are not addressing any of this.
What? You mean Dobbs quoting a medieval witch-killer is not a reasoned argument? Who knew? How the F did Roberts ever allow that to see the light of day?
Roberts no longer has control of the Court since there are 5 Justices to the right of him.
I read Joyce Vance every day. However, the fact that the courts are nominally still functional (Cannon and Kacsmaryk aside), is no guarantee that the situation will remain the same six months from now.
You're right, the past is no guarantee of the future, but Chief Justice Roberts knows that he will be cursed for the next 500 years in the history books if he allows the US Constitution to fall.
He may indeed be cursed. But that should have been ensured when Citizens United was decided under his leadership. SCOTUS' rulings seem to be becoming more egregious all the time. As I mentioned above, Dobbs, Bruen, Snyder (bribes = gratuities), and Trump, as just a few examples, seem to indicate that neither Roberts nor his right-wing cohorts gives a rat's butt about how history sees them. They'd rather have power and money in this incarnation.
Besides, the blame for the fall of the Constitution can slways be laid at mango man's door.