They have staff attorneys that do most of the heavy research and draft the rulings. The judges then review and finalize their rulings. In my experience, the higher the court, the larger number of dedicated staff attorneys they have.
Ohhhh… William Barr was plenty controversial during his time as George H. W. Bush’s AG. Now he’s off-the-charts nuts.
Here is a good overview. (New Yorker)
Dang, you’re smart and well-informed. (Cute, too.) I’m glad you’ve chosen to use your considerable powers for good instead of the Dark Side. 
Nice lady you are. Thanks.
Charlie Savage, NYT:
I want to be excited too. But it doesn’t matter. None of them is going to testify, and if they do it won’t matter. The Senate won’t convict.
All of this is only for history*.
(*and maybe to encourage/enrage Democratic voters in 2020 although others here disagree)
It’s also incredibly prestigious for a lawyer to get a job clerking for a federal judge or (gasp!) Supreme Court judge, since these judges are people nominated by a President and approved by the Senate (I’ve been in the chambers of two federal judges. Both had the senate’s roll call vote for their appointment framed and hanging on the wall).
These clerkships usually go to people just graduating from law school at or near the top of their class. At the Supreme Court level, the clerks will come from the top schools like Harvard or Yale. federal judges attract top schools, too.
After a few years writing drafts and doing research for a federal level judge, a lawyer can write their meal ticket to any of the biggest and most renowned law firms.
The Daily Beast: Oligarch: Giuliani Offered to Help With Legal Problems, if I Helped Pressure Ukraine.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dmytro-firtash-giuliani-offered-to-help-with-legal-problems-if-i-helped-pressure-ukraine?source=cheats&via=rss
A Ukrainian oligarch who faces extradition to the US on racketeering and bribery charges says Rudy offered to help if he helped dig up dirt on the Bidens, according to the article. Not a very reliable witness, granted. Maybe he has documents?
Guys, sorry. I was finishing up a major mural project and didn’t get to check in on the news. Fill me in:
So a judge ruled everyone who is subpoenaed has to obey it, but it’ll be appealed all the way up to God Almighty Himself, right?
And general vibes are that the Dems won’t want to wait it out because they feel like their case is strong enough as it stands?
What about the inclusion and accusations against Moo-nes?
Regarding the SCOTUS stay for the tax returns–
Congress agreed to a 10 day stay “while the court decided if they will hear the case.” That was Nov 15 and ended today, the 25th, and the SCOTUS handed down another stay because for some reason, they can’t decide if they will hear the case or not.
…does Congress have a say-so in this? Can they not say “hey bud we were cool with you out of respect for the court but we’re going to kindly go with the previous NUMEROUS court judgments and stand on those rulings and collect.”
Or say “ok but here’s how long you have to decide.”
Or can the court just sit on this forever?
Is this some way that conservatives judges–who cannot outright rule against standing law, legitimate adjudication, and the constitution–back-door their way into “not letting it happen” anyway? I mean, they can’t take this case, right? They can’t rule against established law and against the constitution in favor of protecting a president, right?
What happens next?
I want every moment of this, every smirk, grin and lie forever recorded. I see a lot of reasons and good in this. This is not the time to just give them the mulligan and see what they do next!
My attitude is I don’t care in the slightest if the senate won’t convict. The scary “idea” of it is actually holding sway above the event itself and many are getting spooked. They have lost the idea of public contest of justice meaning anything. The reason you play the game is so you find out what happens. Ask John Kennedy what he’s thinking tonight. You want to let him crawl back to his hole and fuck democracy?
It means something to strip people like graham, mcconnel, of any moral or ethical cover, no matter what happens. I’m a taxpayer and I think I am owed it.
The post-hearing polls are coming in, and they’re not looking good for Trump:
SurveyUSA (an A-rated poller per 538): Net 9% margin for impeachment
YouGov (a B- rated poller per 538): Net 8% margin for impeachment
YouGov again: Net 3% margin for impeachment and removal
No, **asahi **didn’t write this. But he could have. My emphasis.
If you’re like me, you may have thrown up in your mouth a little when you read that…
It feels really mean to asahi to compare him to Ross Douthat. He’s a doomsayer, not a hack.
It isn’t that hard to imagine. When people are comfortable, they don’t want a revolution. Now, this is an extreme way of putting it, but that’s human nature. The people posting in here have at least some interest in politics. Most people don’t. They just want to live their life as comfortably as they can. Revolution, or let’s tone it down to political upheaval, comes when people are uncomfortable. When they’re worried about themselves and their families at a personal level. And in the West, since most people are generally pretty secure in terms of basic necessities, it ends up coming down to the broader economy, and how it affects our own personal jobs and life. When the economy is good, our jobs are secure, perhaps our RRSP/401Ks are growing, the stock market is growing, etc. then people don’t really want unusual change represented by an impeachment. If Trump wins reelection, then it will be because of his unshakeable base plus a firm economy.
I agree that it’s unlikely that Trump will actually be removed from office by an impeachment. The Republicans in the Senate will simply ignore any crimes he’s committed.
So the real goal here is to hold those Republicans accountable. The goal of the impeachment hearings should be making clear to the general public that Trump has committed crimes. And then making it clear to the general public that the Republicans are willing to allow him to commit crimes.
Then the general public will have its opportunity to render its own verdict on Election Day.
I disagree. I think the fundamental difference in the outcomes of Nixon’s and Clinton’s impeachments was that Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses and Clinton wasn’t.
Trump and the Republicans are fooling themselves if they think they can follow the example of Clinton and the Democrats. The voters didn’t punish Clinton or the Democrats who supporting him because they didn’t see a legitimate case for impeachment being presented.
Well, if the Clinton impeachment trial happened today, I’m reasonably sure that most Dem Senators would vote to convict. Look at Al Franken.
Just reading off 538, but these really aren’t looking good for Trump:
SSRS (A/B): Net 7% margin for impeachment and removal
Morning Consult (B/C): Net 5% margin for impeachment
Morning Consult: Net 9% margin for impeachment
That last one has independents at a net 10% margin in support of impeachment, which has got to be worrying for the GOP.
That was a very beautifully expressed observation.
Thank-you.
+1, +1…Indeed - force the Senate’s hand and show for posterity their enabling of such a corrupt administration. The process has to be played out.
Others have seconded this notion but I want to especially highlight that last part.
Lots of people seem to think the House is ignoring its other duties by devoting so much time to these hearings. Don’t they realize this is one of the highest duties they can perform? A president has allegedly abused the power of the office for personal gain. If the House ignores it, we may as well be a banana republic where elected leaders can ransack the country at will.
I live in Illinois, where a Dem governor pulled this shit and got 14 years in a federal pen. That’s how it’s supposed to work, folks.