Stupid question here -- if judges and other bodies toss out Trump's appointees, could those appointees appeal to the SC and win appointment through the back door?
SCOTUS is unpredictable now. They voted 9-0 against Trump in the early days over ... Abrego Garcia, was it? They've handed him some setbacks. But in other cases, they've absolutely bent the knee, and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to any of it.
Given that SCOTUS overturned a long standing doctrine of respect for "experts" in policy and science working for various government agencies, experts who presumably stand to gain nothing from misrepresenting their knowledge, then the SC should have NO PROBLEM throwing out " presumption of regularity".
That's clearly a form of bias towards one side in a court proceeding, and a bias towards one side which stands to gain personally and/or politically from the results of that proceeding, so have every reason to misrepresent the facts and the truth.
Who in the administration is actually driving all this? It is difficult to believe that Trump has a sufficiently coherent view of anything to organize a coherent campaign moving the country toward dictatorship, which the most recent developments concerning the National Guard almost certainly indicate is the goal.
everything Trump touches is built on misinformation and vendetta. At the present time the courts seem to be the only thing slowing down or even stopping Trump's desire to be a dictator. But it is only a glimmer of hope, not a solution. Trump will continue to ignore court orders and evade any penalties against him. We need an event that will lead to his removal from office, indictment and conviction with penalties actually imposed.
When Trump was "re-elected" and started taking a sledgehammer to law and order, I told a lawyer friend of mine that the courts would never be able to keep up with their "smash and grab" politics, and I was right. Dammit. It took almost nine months to overcome the massive amount of inertia to get things moving in the right direction; now if only they can catch up and really become a resistance.
But I am more than willing to believe (but hope not) that it won't happen because Trump at heart is just a mobster, and I would not at all be surprised to see a few judges like Boasberg "meet with accidents" as a warning to the rest of the judges not to stand in the way of Der Trumpenfuehrer's ambitions.
There is (mostly) a First Amendment right to lie. And nobody likes being lied to. But most of us can't DO much about this, short of defamation suits. This regime is so used to lying (see Noem's announcement that no US citizens have been detained) that it has lost track of the fact that some people DO have the power to do something about lies; some people can impose consequences on lying to them. Those folks clearly include the courts, who can decide not to believe what they are being told, and act accordingly without touching anyone's First Amendment Rights.
It is encouraging that the courts have adapted to the regime's reckless disregard for the rule of law, their evident scorn for procedural norms and, more critical, their blatant dishonesty and misrepresentations in their court actions.
most of the time it DOES if the defendant raises examples of bad faith. The jury decides who to believe in that case. Put in enough evidence and there will be failure to meet the burden of proof. The cases Jay is talking about have more to do with accepting pleadings as being in good faith. It's a matter of trust--absent any evidence of bad faith, assume it is absent. But you can lose that by wracking up example after example of bad faith. At that point the skepticism antenna start twitching. It is now twitching in courtrooms across the country.
I'm concerned about what happens next. Assuming a Democratic win in 2028, the next administration has to reestablish the principle of DOJ independence. But, they also have to make it clear that not letting politics interfere in charging decision works both ways. It's vitally important that it be made clear that there will be consequences for any future administrations considering the Trump model. That means charging the members of Trump's administration with any crimes that they are legitimately guilty of while making sure not to veer into the trap of simply seeking revenge.
I REALLY want to see the judges start recommending sanctions for the DoInJ attorneys that are clearly acting in bad faith. There need to be consequences for their actions.
I am so grateful to the judges for upholding the laws and for realizing what they are dealing with when it comes to trump and his personal DOJ. I cannot believe that agent orange publicized President Obamas address!!! trump is a real pos.
Thanks, Jay, for the clear-headed explanation of legal proceedings understandable to non-lawyers like me. Since even before T47 started, I’ve wondered exactly what the extremist SCOTUS Justices are thinking by giving such deference to Trump for the simple reason that he has no allegiances, ultimately, to anyone but himself. How is it possible that such supposedly-intelligent Justices could grant him almost complete legal immunity (i.e., Trump v. United States) when it’s clear THEY will be targeted themselves at some future date when they do ANYTHING he doesn’t like? Are they really that naïve? It boggles the mind.
Stupid question here -- if judges and other bodies toss out Trump's appointees, could those appointees appeal to the SC and win appointment through the back door?
SCOTUS is unpredictable now. They voted 9-0 against Trump in the early days over ... Abrego Garcia, was it? They've handed him some setbacks. But in other cases, they've absolutely bent the knee, and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to any of it.
Given that SCOTUS overturned a long standing doctrine of respect for "experts" in policy and science working for various government agencies, experts who presumably stand to gain nothing from misrepresenting their knowledge, then the SC should have NO PROBLEM throwing out " presumption of regularity".
That's clearly a form of bias towards one side in a court proceeding, and a bias towards one side which stands to gain personally and/or politically from the results of that proceeding, so have every reason to misrepresent the facts and the truth.
This is the most important sentence in this article:
"The federal courts ..... perhaps more importantly, will provide the legal justifications for both civilians and the military to refuse to go along."
Jay--
Who in the administration is actually driving all this? It is difficult to believe that Trump has a sufficiently coherent view of anything to organize a coherent campaign moving the country toward dictatorship, which the most recent developments concerning the National Guard almost certainly indicate is the goal.
everything Trump touches is built on misinformation and vendetta. At the present time the courts seem to be the only thing slowing down or even stopping Trump's desire to be a dictator. But it is only a glimmer of hope, not a solution. Trump will continue to ignore court orders and evade any penalties against him. We need an event that will lead to his removal from office, indictment and conviction with penalties actually imposed.
Courts can and should enforce accountability. Bring out the truth and apply the Constitution.
When Trump was "re-elected" and started taking a sledgehammer to law and order, I told a lawyer friend of mine that the courts would never be able to keep up with their "smash and grab" politics, and I was right. Dammit. It took almost nine months to overcome the massive amount of inertia to get things moving in the right direction; now if only they can catch up and really become a resistance.
But I am more than willing to believe (but hope not) that it won't happen because Trump at heart is just a mobster, and I would not at all be surprised to see a few judges like Boasberg "meet with accidents" as a warning to the rest of the judges not to stand in the way of Der Trumpenfuehrer's ambitions.
The work is special. Trump and his allies are corrupted.
Subverting the judicial system takes time - but the capital SCOTUS was conquered, now the countryside needs to "deradicalized".
There is (mostly) a First Amendment right to lie. And nobody likes being lied to. But most of us can't DO much about this, short of defamation suits. This regime is so used to lying (see Noem's announcement that no US citizens have been detained) that it has lost track of the fact that some people DO have the power to do something about lies; some people can impose consequences on lying to them. Those folks clearly include the courts, who can decide not to believe what they are being told, and act accordingly without touching anyone's First Amendment Rights.
It is encouraging that the courts have adapted to the regime's reckless disregard for the rule of law, their evident scorn for procedural norms and, more critical, their blatant dishonesty and misrepresentations in their court actions.
I’m clearly not a lawyer or law student, but why was the presumption of regularity ever a thing?
Why shouldn’t the government have to prove it acted in good faith?
most of the time it DOES if the defendant raises examples of bad faith. The jury decides who to believe in that case. Put in enough evidence and there will be failure to meet the burden of proof. The cases Jay is talking about have more to do with accepting pleadings as being in good faith. It's a matter of trust--absent any evidence of bad faith, assume it is absent. But you can lose that by wracking up example after example of bad faith. At that point the skepticism antenna start twitching. It is now twitching in courtrooms across the country.
I'm concerned about what happens next. Assuming a Democratic win in 2028, the next administration has to reestablish the principle of DOJ independence. But, they also have to make it clear that not letting politics interfere in charging decision works both ways. It's vitally important that it be made clear that there will be consequences for any future administrations considering the Trump model. That means charging the members of Trump's administration with any crimes that they are legitimately guilty of while making sure not to veer into the trap of simply seeking revenge.
Thank you Jay.
I REALLY want to see the judges start recommending sanctions for the DoInJ attorneys that are clearly acting in bad faith. There need to be consequences for their actions.
I am so grateful to the judges for upholding the laws and for realizing what they are dealing with when it comes to trump and his personal DOJ. I cannot believe that agent orange publicized President Obamas address!!! trump is a real pos.
Thanks, Jay, for the clear-headed explanation of legal proceedings understandable to non-lawyers like me. Since even before T47 started, I’ve wondered exactly what the extremist SCOTUS Justices are thinking by giving such deference to Trump for the simple reason that he has no allegiances, ultimately, to anyone but himself. How is it possible that such supposedly-intelligent Justices could grant him almost complete legal immunity (i.e., Trump v. United States) when it’s clear THEY will be targeted themselves at some future date when they do ANYTHING he doesn’t like? Are they really that naïve? It boggles the mind.