'Splain, please. Fill in the blanks. What are you thinking could happen?
Here is the court transcript of a phone conference with the judge. Astounding.
Imagine a judge implying that you, a DOJ attorney, are not speaking for the president!
My thinking:
Nothing will render American society more open to making changes at the SCOTUS than if they continue to ignore the changing social dynamics of the majority of citizens. They are already seriously out of step. Example: You’ll never see them overturn Roe. They’ll fuck with it, sure. They’ll go as far as they possibly can – without actually overturning it. Roberts is mindful of their vulnerability if they move in too obvious a way. They’ll score big when they think they can get away with it, such as with the gerrymandering ruling.
In the debates, Bernie raised the approach I’ve heard most often as a way of dealing with a nakedly partisan SCOTUS. (I winced when he did, too. Shaddup already, till after the election!)
The idea is to expand the total number of Justices, limit them to a term of service of, say, 18 years, then pick them randomly to hear each case on the docket for a given term. That way, no one knows how a particular SCOTUS bench will be made up in advance, and they can’t aim cases at a “friendly” court.
It could also serve to inhibit choosing baldly partisan judges for new vacancies, because neither side would know when their pet case might be aided by a more moderate pick on the other side.
Obviously there would be a lot of pushback on this by Republicans, but the majority of Americans are troubled by the direction they see their SCOTUS moving. It makes the SCOTUS much more vulnerable to drastic changes being considered – and possibly even enacted, if the majority regains control and is angry enough at a blatantly partisan SCOTUS.
They’re getting there.
This assumes the president is on the side of the American people. As the DOJ is supposed to be. At this point in time, neither are.
I can almost hear Mitch McConnell calling the Census “socialism”.
You totally fucking rock.
I really appreciate the concise way you lay things out as well as your always even tone. It doesn’t hurt that you know a shitload about the DOJ, court proceedings, etc.; your experience is great to tap into.
I hadn’t heard about this SCOTUS plan; I’m gonna look into it further and edumacate myself. Thanks!
Isn’t that THE cardinal sin for an attorney, “not speaking for their client”?
It sucks for the DOJ attorneys that they must represent the Executive Branch in this complete piece of shit case, but that’s what happens when the occupant of the Oval Office is concerned solely with saving his own hide from prosecution, rather than safeguarding the well being of the American people. He’ll do anything to appear “tough on immigration” in his efforts to get reelected.
What I hate most about the citizenship question case is that we were saved from this travesty by one… lousy… vote.
I’m sure the DOJ lawyers extracted an “iron-clad” representation from Wilbur Ross that the citizenship question would not be further pursued for the 2020 census. Worth exactly nothing, obviously, and no one is surprised.
As the judge pointed out and jasg helpfully quoted with his post, in an ordinary situation where a party and his/her attorney differed in their representations, the judge would simply summon the party to court to explain. But of course that’s not going to happen here.
Someone needs to grow a pair and tell Trump he lost this case, he’s not going to win by flipping off the Chief Justice and he’ll just have to rely on the Russians and the Saudis for Ivanka’s election efforts in 2024.
If Trump openly defies a SCOTUS ruling, the percentage of Americans who support impeachment and removal – now at 45% – may continue to grow as a result. Let’s hope.
My fear is that, faced with a situation where the validity of the court’s rulings would become a major partisan dispute, and not really having his heart in it in the first place, Roberts will just accept whatever new argument the administration cooks up, even if it’s worse than the previous pretext.
What percent of Mitch McConnells support impeachment?
Well, it sounds better than, “Hey, asshole…”
If the so-called administration isn’t bound to follow the law when printing the census, and collecting its data, why the fuck should anyone else receiving the questionnaire give two shits about the “law” regarding their obligations?
I guess a Trump-appointed judge had to leach up and enter the fray at some point or another, as is this former cop who’ll be presiding over House Democrats’ legal bid for President Donald Trump’s tax returns
The curse of the passive voice! The opening sentence at that link (my bold): “House Democrats’ legal bid for President Donald Trump’s tax returns has been assigned to a district court judge appointed by Trump.” Who makes these assignments?
Op-Ed in the Washington Post today (may be pay walled):
Justin Amash: Our politics is in a partisan death spiral. That’s why I’m leaving the GOP.
Amash quotes this guy* about political parties:
*I’m sure you could guess:
George Washington
George Washington ? Typical liberal America-hater. Didn’t ever wear a flag pin, say the Pledge or go to a baseball game. MAGA !
Loser didn’t even know how to lie properly. Cherry tree? FAKE NEWS!
Oh yeah, there’s that too. Not cutting cherry trees sounds like namby pamby liberal nanny state climate hoax bullshit to me. *Real *Americans chainsaw trees to own the libs. Cherries are a faggoty fruit, too. All fruits, really. If it ain’t a beef-flavoured, BBQ smoked apple pie, it ain’t American !
You made me laugh so hard I scared my dog! <It’s okay, Sweetie. Mommy’s sorry.>
And it has been my privilege, madame. doffs hat
(too corny ? Fuck. I wish I was an Englishman sometimes, then I could do grandiloquent, charming obsequiousness right. Plus you’d all wonder if I was being overly respectful or scornfully condescending at all times. As it stands, I merely sound like an idjit.)
ETA : oh, but do pet your dog for me. He/she’s a gooboy, ain’t he/she ?!
ETA2 : I also wish I could have a dog.