3 ms·
Yes, that's why I didnt recommend reading Jackson's dissent -- because its design ed to create emotional disregulation in readers and whip up a political storm.
by mjburgess 1y ago
Yes, that's why I didnt recommend reading Jackson's dissent -- because its design ed to create emotional disregulation in readers and whip up a political storm.
If you read K's concurrence, you'll wonder why there is any issue at all. Since, roughly, there isn't one -- there are a very large number of ways this EO can be challenged universally without requiring UIs
- hayst4ck 1y agoYes I am aware. Your use of the word hysterical was precisely chosen based on your prejudices. Hearing that the executive is less constrained and more able to violate the law should make you emotional, especially when one of the nine highest members of the judiciary are assessing it.
- mjburgess 1y agoThe executive was being constrained by district court judges, hundres of them -- many, as we've seen, can be themselves a little crazy. You don't want your country being run by the craziest common denominator amongst the judiciary. This is about as far away from democracy as you can imagine, and allowed to run rampent, would lead to massive a democractic backfire. Imagine the political upheval of a democrat president being unable to act because of trump-apointee crazys in florida. The court has just prevented a decade of mass protests and political insability
- const_cast 1y ago> You don't want your country being run by the craziest common denominator amongst the judiciary. Yes, we'd much prefer a dictator attempting to unilaterally invalidate constitutional amendments... > The court has just prevented a decade of mass protests and political insability Yes, they have - by further emboldening the executive ala Unitary Executive theory. This isn't a good thing - we are all witnessing one of many steps in the US' descent into fascism.