4 ms·

Judicial Independence May Require Confrontation

ggm 2y ago
They say that now, but the proof of the pudding will be in the landslide of cases heading their way. So, they said that about this one. Gotta pay debts. But not all the cases heading their way will be about prior debt and contracts for externals, and some go head to head with the underlying philosophy of the Judges, and the Judges wife (in one special case, the one who appears minded to accept largesse for holidays, and whose wife is a political operative. Hows that for independence!) I'm especially interested in how they intend adjudicating on the ability of the President to rule by decree reversing existing decisions made in the other place, or to override those rules, or to appoint people irrespective of the rules of confirmation by congress. If they decide the presidents wishes are law, we're all in a very strange place with a president who appears to change their mind on a daily basis. Some of the cases coming their way look very much like settled black letter law. For legal minimalists, they'd be overturning decisions over 100 years old maybe. I thought the current vibe in the supreme bench was that being an inventive constructive judge was "bad" and "what the words say" was good. So the words say some of what Trump wants to do is "bad" and I'd like to see if they refine their "black letter good" view of things.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  The presidential immunity decision tells you all you need to know. It contradicts the basic and foundational premise of the rule of law that it applies to all. They would never have ruled that way for Biden had he faced anything close to similar charges. No principles only politics.
tmaly 2y ago
This is a very interesting topic that I think warrants discussion. I am surprised FDR and the stitch in time that saved nine was not mentioned. If we had some constitutional fixed limit on the number of judges, I think that would have resolved the FDR coercion. Trump like FDR is moving very quickly in the first 100 days.

ggm 2y ago

They say that now, but the proof of the pudding will be in the landslide of cases heading their way. So, they said that about this one. Gotta pay debts. But not all the cases heading their way will be about prior debt and contracts for externals, and some go head to head with the underlying philosophy of the Judges, and the Judges wife (in one special case, the one who appears minded to accept largesse for holidays, and whose wife is a political operative. Hows that for independence!) I'm especially interested in how they intend adjudicating on the ability of the President to rule by decree reversing existing decisions made in the other place, or to override those rules, or to appoint people irrespective of the rules of confirmation by congress. If they decide the presidents wishes are law, we're all in a very strange place with a president who appears to change their mind on a daily basis. Some of the cases coming their way look very much like settled black letter law. For legal minimalists, they'd be overturning decisions over 100 years old maybe. I thought the current vibe in the supreme bench was that being an inventive constructive judge was "bad" and "what the words say" was good. So the words say some of what Trump wants to do is "bad" and I'd like to see if they refine their "black letter good" view of things.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
The presidential immunity decision tells you all you need to know. It contradicts the basic and foundational premise of the rule of law that it applies to all. They would never have ruled that way for Biden had he faced anything close to similar charges. No principles only politics.

tmaly 2y ago

This is a very interesting topic that I think warrants discussion. I am surprised FDR and the stitch in time that saved nine was not mentioned. If we had some constitutional fixed limit on the number of judges, I think that would have resolved the FDR coercion. Trump like FDR is moving very quickly in the first 100 days.