Yeah sure the Alito sycophant is making a “good faith” argument. The current scotus majority was won by cheating across multiple elections and not earned whatsoever. Alito flying the upside down flag is as nakedly partisan as it gets.
"Looking to judicial “reforms” as the solution to our present crisis is looking in the wrong place. The other two branches are the bigger problem." Amen.
Regardless of its ambiguity, the Trump v U.S. decision is unquestionably missing the constitutional mark by a historically aberrant margin. It has taken American jurisprudence back to medieval times, before the Magna Carta. Those principles led to the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment led to the founding of the United States. From my perspective, the Court has otherwise exhibited institutional drift towards granting Trump greater and greater unitary executive power. It has pushed back on the most outlandish bald-faced violations against the Constitution. Except the absolute most crucial one: that immunity is granted to no one by virtue of office, stature, or anything. That is so fundamental to what defines our system of self-government, no other pushback mitigates the damage done by Trump v U.S.
That said, I'm skeptical of enlarging the Court. Impeach them and disbar them. If that fails, then yes, enlarge the Court.
I stopped reading at "I agree with much of Somin’s account and take an even more positive view."
The big difference between Trump v. US and previous outrages like Dred Scott and Korematsu is that the latter were not nakedly partisan.
Yeah sure the Alito sycophant is making a “good faith” argument. The current scotus majority was won by cheating across multiple elections and not earned whatsoever. Alito flying the upside down flag is as nakedly partisan as it gets.
"Looking to judicial “reforms” as the solution to our present crisis is looking in the wrong place. The other two branches are the bigger problem." Amen.
Regardless of its ambiguity, the Trump v U.S. decision is unquestionably missing the constitutional mark by a historically aberrant margin. It has taken American jurisprudence back to medieval times, before the Magna Carta. Those principles led to the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment led to the founding of the United States. From my perspective, the Court has otherwise exhibited institutional drift towards granting Trump greater and greater unitary executive power. It has pushed back on the most outlandish bald-faced violations against the Constitution. Except the absolute most crucial one: that immunity is granted to no one by virtue of office, stature, or anything. That is so fundamental to what defines our system of self-government, no other pushback mitigates the damage done by Trump v U.S.
That said, I'm skeptical of enlarging the Court. Impeach them and disbar them. If that fails, then yes, enlarge the Court.
Ridiculous. _Nothing_ will move forward unless the Court is packed. Nothing. Why is this so hard to understand?