President Trump's latest emergency application rests on a contrived procedural emergency and a forfeited substantive claim—apparently banking on the view that the Court doesn't mind being played.
What remains to be seen is who's playing whom. If the majority on the Supreme Court is willing to play along with Trump's contrived emergencies and to green light his actions based on them, then isn't it fair to conclude that they share Trump's fascist agenda for the country and will interpret and apply the Constitution through that lens?
I have lost all faith in the Roberts court. He doesn't call balls and strikes. He makes up stuff, ignores precedent and settled law (and that is just a start). His court has allowed Trump to walk over our government. The court needs serious reforms ASAP
"The harder question is whether, in a case in which the government’s cynical attempt to so obviously manipulate the emergency docket is happening in plain sight, the justices will still indulge it."
I would bet the farm on the SCOTUS conservatives indulging it.
I wonder at SCOTUS's end game. Do they think that by allowing a dictatorship to overwhelm our country they will always have a free slide, unchecked toward self-enrichment? Maybe they think that as long as they allow a lawless administration, that their partisan and corrupt behaviors will be overlooked in perpetuity, or at least as long as their life-long terms exist. The phrase "follow the money" might be in play, unchecked by a feckless administration. Is it that simple?
This does seem like a new playbook within the old playbook's cover. I mean, yes--if the SCOTUS Six, or even 5/6 of them, grant emergency relief based on a contrived and incomplete appeal, they out loud know they are dancing to the executive's tune, approve of being used as a judicial sanction of the government's carelessly articulated authoritarian whims, and are signaling to the lower courts that they may as well not bother. I sincerely hope the lower courts continue to uphold expectations of regularity if for no other reason than it gives the resistance time to organize.
The way I see it, the invasion of one state by another is a call to state Governors to mobilize their National Guards to resist UNLAWFUL assault. Also, the gerrymander fight is on. There is a new playbook. The old rules have been struck down by the Supreme Court. We need to change the gears here as fast as possible for deadly PREEMPTIVE strikes. Newsom has moved out on this already. Who is next? Hochul. Where are you? NO EXCUSE! Change your state Constitution. Pritzker. What are you doing?
Without reading the entirety of the post (yet), the answer to the question of whether the justices will indulge the Trump's administration's effort to use the court to slap down lower court impediments, the short is "yes." The justices, namely Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas have nothing less than total contempt for the lower courts' effort to apply the rule of law.
One additional point on DOJ’s disingenuous tactics here: It maintains that the APA does not provide a remedy since the exclusive judicial recourse for illegal impoundments is suit by the Comptroller General under the ICA, However, if the CG actually brought such a suit, DOJ would surely argue that it was unconstitutional since the CG as a legislative branch official can’t perform the executive function of suing to enforce a law. (See the 1986 SCOTUS decision in Bowsher v. Synar.) Moreover, the Trump administration maintains that the entire ICA is unconstitutional. The SG’s submission to the Supreme Court here hints several times that a suit by the CG under the ICA would be nonjusticiable but stops short of saying so explicitly. In other words, DOJ’s real position is that NOBODY can sue to challenge executive branch impoundments.
Shouldn’t we try to make the foot soldiers of this authoritarian movement pay a price? Like filing a bar complaint against those that are clearly misrepresenting facts and misleading the Court?
I am not a lawyer and I’m slowly getting a legal education through your posts, which are quite riveting. As you describe it, the government is playing the system and blasé about any sense of responsibility for their behavior. Seems to be matched by a parallel sense of entitlement by some members of the Supreme Court.. if this weren’t such a tragedy for our country, it would be a comedy!
Thank you once again for taking the time to so clearly delineate the issues with this filing. Your explanation is invaluable. I still have some hope . . .
So many of your readers like myself, must be greatly encouraged by this latest discussion--as u are finally coming close to saying what is obviously true, that between Sen Mitch McConnell & Trump's machinations & manipulations of the Supreme Court nominating process--this Court is unabashedly corrupt & partisan in an unprecedented way! Like all Trump's appointees, his Justice appointees were chosen for blind loyalty, not jurisprudence excellence or fairness. If we can continue to expect blind obedience to Trump's demands that the Supreme Court uphold his ever more dangerously increasing lawlessness--our 250 year experiment w/a constitutional democratic republic is in dire & immediate danger! Can we realistically expect this partisan & corrupt Supreme Court to stop Trump's march towards autocracy?
Hi Steve, I know you're probably sick of hearing from me on your feed, but I actually spoke about this conduct (John Sauer) in court in front of Judge Reyes, and confronted the presumed legitimicay mr trump is granted as an office holder, despite 14sec3 violations, does real damage in the hands of this supreme court. Anyway - I made the argument, it was dismissed and I will appeal, because as a matter of law, I absolutely have standing to bring the case under the declaritory judgement act, as a citizen under Bond, Lexmark, and Supertire, and even have facts of standing include family separation at the border, and STILL the judge wants to sweep it aside (even if she may agree with me) because there is no political courage to SAY THE LAW. (marbury).
If we really are in this ALL HANDS ON DECK moment, I really would appreciate SOME degree of legitimacy from the legal community, because if the president can nullify constitutional prohibitions by firing prosecutors, and placing lackeys in charge at DOJ, and on the bench, then who WILL bring these cases to court IF NOT ordinary citizens, who are losing their rights anyway?
I've posted the transcript (it's a very short hearing!) with some commentary if you wouldn't mind taking a fair minded look at it????? I'm not a lawyer, but I flew to DC, took an uber to my hotel and court, and stood up in federal court and told a federal judge she was wrong, and she was. That oughta count for SOMETHING, or at least be something worth noting, no?
I am making a point, even if the courts don't want to hear it.
What remains to be seen is who's playing whom. If the majority on the Supreme Court is willing to play along with Trump's contrived emergencies and to green light his actions based on them, then isn't it fair to conclude that they share Trump's fascist agenda for the country and will interpret and apply the Constitution through that lens?
I have lost all faith in the Roberts court. He doesn't call balls and strikes. He makes up stuff, ignores precedent and settled law (and that is just a start). His court has allowed Trump to walk over our government. The court needs serious reforms ASAP
"The harder question is whether, in a case in which the government’s cynical attempt to so obviously manipulate the emergency docket is happening in plain sight, the justices will still indulge it."
I would bet the farm on the SCOTUS conservatives indulging it.
Another timely and urgent update on the latest shenanigans . Thanks
"Don't tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is." -- Roy Cohn
I wonder at SCOTUS's end game. Do they think that by allowing a dictatorship to overwhelm our country they will always have a free slide, unchecked toward self-enrichment? Maybe they think that as long as they allow a lawless administration, that their partisan and corrupt behaviors will be overlooked in perpetuity, or at least as long as their life-long terms exist. The phrase "follow the money" might be in play, unchecked by a feckless administration. Is it that simple?
This does seem like a new playbook within the old playbook's cover. I mean, yes--if the SCOTUS Six, or even 5/6 of them, grant emergency relief based on a contrived and incomplete appeal, they out loud know they are dancing to the executive's tune, approve of being used as a judicial sanction of the government's carelessly articulated authoritarian whims, and are signaling to the lower courts that they may as well not bother. I sincerely hope the lower courts continue to uphold expectations of regularity if for no other reason than it gives the resistance time to organize.
The way I see it, the invasion of one state by another is a call to state Governors to mobilize their National Guards to resist UNLAWFUL assault. Also, the gerrymander fight is on. There is a new playbook. The old rules have been struck down by the Supreme Court. We need to change the gears here as fast as possible for deadly PREEMPTIVE strikes. Newsom has moved out on this already. Who is next? Hochul. Where are you? NO EXCUSE! Change your state Constitution. Pritzker. What are you doing?
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/gerrymander-fight?r=3m1bs
Without reading the entirety of the post (yet), the answer to the question of whether the justices will indulge the Trump's administration's effort to use the court to slap down lower court impediments, the short is "yes." The justices, namely Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas have nothing less than total contempt for the lower courts' effort to apply the rule of law.
One additional point on DOJ’s disingenuous tactics here: It maintains that the APA does not provide a remedy since the exclusive judicial recourse for illegal impoundments is suit by the Comptroller General under the ICA, However, if the CG actually brought such a suit, DOJ would surely argue that it was unconstitutional since the CG as a legislative branch official can’t perform the executive function of suing to enforce a law. (See the 1986 SCOTUS decision in Bowsher v. Synar.) Moreover, the Trump administration maintains that the entire ICA is unconstitutional. The SG’s submission to the Supreme Court here hints several times that a suit by the CG under the ICA would be nonjusticiable but stops short of saying so explicitly. In other words, DOJ’s real position is that NOBODY can sue to challenge executive branch impoundments.
thank you - tracking the detail to grasp the importance. A president that constantly cries wolf
Shouldn’t we try to make the foot soldiers of this authoritarian movement pay a price? Like filing a bar complaint against those that are clearly misrepresenting facts and misleading the Court?
I am not a lawyer and I’m slowly getting a legal education through your posts, which are quite riveting. As you describe it, the government is playing the system and blasé about any sense of responsibility for their behavior. Seems to be matched by a parallel sense of entitlement by some members of the Supreme Court.. if this weren’t such a tragedy for our country, it would be a comedy!
Thank you once again for taking the time to so clearly delineate the issues with this filing. Your explanation is invaluable. I still have some hope . . .
So many of your readers like myself, must be greatly encouraged by this latest discussion--as u are finally coming close to saying what is obviously true, that between Sen Mitch McConnell & Trump's machinations & manipulations of the Supreme Court nominating process--this Court is unabashedly corrupt & partisan in an unprecedented way! Like all Trump's appointees, his Justice appointees were chosen for blind loyalty, not jurisprudence excellence or fairness. If we can continue to expect blind obedience to Trump's demands that the Supreme Court uphold his ever more dangerously increasing lawlessness--our 250 year experiment w/a constitutional democratic republic is in dire & immediate danger! Can we realistically expect this partisan & corrupt Supreme Court to stop Trump's march towards autocracy?
Hi Steve, I know you're probably sick of hearing from me on your feed, but I actually spoke about this conduct (John Sauer) in court in front of Judge Reyes, and confronted the presumed legitimicay mr trump is granted as an office holder, despite 14sec3 violations, does real damage in the hands of this supreme court. Anyway - I made the argument, it was dismissed and I will appeal, because as a matter of law, I absolutely have standing to bring the case under the declaritory judgement act, as a citizen under Bond, Lexmark, and Supertire, and even have facts of standing include family separation at the border, and STILL the judge wants to sweep it aside (even if she may agree with me) because there is no political courage to SAY THE LAW. (marbury).
If we really are in this ALL HANDS ON DECK moment, I really would appreciate SOME degree of legitimacy from the legal community, because if the president can nullify constitutional prohibitions by firing prosecutors, and placing lackeys in charge at DOJ, and on the bench, then who WILL bring these cases to court IF NOT ordinary citizens, who are losing their rights anyway?
I've posted the transcript (it's a very short hearing!) with some commentary if you wouldn't mind taking a fair minded look at it????? I'm not a lawyer, but I flew to DC, took an uber to my hotel and court, and stood up in federal court and told a federal judge she was wrong, and she was. That oughta count for SOMETHING, or at least be something worth noting, no?
I am making a point, even if the courts don't want to hear it.
Joe
https://randoliberal.substack.com/p/alter-v-trump-hearing-transcript
PS: Considering changing the name of my substack to "DISMISSED", thoughts?