Beyond the headlines, which are scary, there’s also this truth though: All of the ways the Court is ruling for Trump so far have been technical in nature: no standing (in the case of groups suing to reinstate probationary workers, no jurisdiction (in the case of a challenge to the Alien Enemies Act).
Neither ruling touches what we call the “merits” of the case. And it would be premature to read too much into these decisions.
So when you see a headline saying “Supreme Court sides with Trump” remember that so far they are only siding with him on technicalities. Do we wish they wouldn’t? Sure. But they haven’t shifted the ground very much one way or the other so far.
11 Likes
Yeah, the media has always done a shitty job reporting on legal rulings, and not just at the level of SCOTUS, but at all levels of the judiciary. A court will issue a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, and the media acts like the court has issued a final decision in the case. Preliminary injunctions are even before they hear arguments on some other motion usually, much less arguments on the actual case. I understand why that could be confusing to someone without much knowledge of the details of our justice system, but the media knows the difference, and they could very easily explain that, but bad news sells better.
12 Likes
Yes, and to people who only read headlines, which is probably most of us now.
12 Likes
Ok, I want that as my theme song.
10 Likes
Juul couldn’t afford the RV…
7 Likes
Me, too!
I’d add a verse for my industry:
The journal article abstract is cool, but what does the data say?
The journal article abstract is cool, but what does the data say?
What methods did they use? Did they cherry-pick data? Because sometimes the authors conclusions are the opposite of what their data says, so look at their methods and results not just the abstract if you want to know what the research actually means.
The journal article abstract is cool, but what does the data say?
11 Likes
15 Likes
He hadn’t been sent to an El Salvadoran prison, but I’m pleasantly surprised anyone has managed to come back after being wrongfully deported. The law isn’t completely gone yet.
15 Likes
11 Likes
I think I posted a link to this spreadsheet somewhere, apparently a different thread, a few weeks ago. Anyway, I’m glad it seems to be having an impact. And here’s an important thing to remember about students starting something like this. The Federalist Society, which now basically controls federal judiciary appointments, especially when Republicans are in control, began as a student organization. Maybe this little spreadsheet could grow into a left leaning version of FedSoc.
18 Likes
There’s a reason why so many countries, especially in Europe (where we have a tendency to pay attention more than other parts of the world) pay for education through university. Students are the future, every generation.
Meanwhile, we’re run by Boomers (says this Boomer) who won’t get out of the way because they feel threatened by at least 3 generations under them.
Every decent parent knows that the next generation taking things further and making them better is what you want, not something to fear.
19 Likes
Shall i throw in my standard parenting advice? The job of any parent is to make themselves unnecessary. Hopefully not unwanted, but unneeded. If you still feel the need to control your kids past probably middle school, something has gone very wrong. I absolutely agree with you. The boomers (spoken as a borderline boomer/Xer) need to let go.
14 Likes
11 Likes
This is bigger pushback on the combination of foreign policy/executive branch power than we’ve typically seen. Again, from a Trump-appointed judge. Speaking of which, I wish an enterprising journalist would take a closer look at all these Trump judges who’ve ruled against him, just to find what might be the pattern to their decisions, their opinions, and so forth. Instead, we got the constant braying on social media that these individuals are “brave” and “courageous” (till they’re not) or that it doesn’t matter at all. There’s another option, which is that it does matter, and does portend some real divisions in TrumpWorld, but what those divisions are, we don’t really yet a full sense of.
This is the most important passage in the ruling:
“The Court concludes that a Presidential declaration invoking the AEA must include sufficient factual statements or refer to other pronouncements that enable a court to determine whether the alleged conduct satisfies the conditions that support the invocation of the statute. The President cannot summarily declare that a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated an invasion or predatory incursion of the United States, followed by the identification of the alien enemies subject to detention or removal…Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA, and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the AEA, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope.”
19 Likes
She doesn’t mention Trump by name, but it’s still clear what she’s talking about. It’s pretty unprecedented for a sitting SC Justice to criticize the current executive this openly. Good for her.
14 Likes
Seems like it’s important to remember that T**** appointed these judges but he didn’t select them. The Federalist Society did. Now we’ve seen there is a schism between TFedSoc-types and MAGA. FedSoc-selected judges seem to be perfectly willing to torture the Constitution to accomplish certain domestic goals (forced birth, 2A, Xtian “religious freedom”) but seem to be surprisingly skittish about unfettered executive power.
13 Likes
So will Congress next, on Tramp’s orders, impeach her?
8 Likes
100% correct. And, for anyone complaining that student protests can’t accomplish anything, the Federalist Society is not some ancient organization of old, stodgy conservative lawyers that’s been around forever. It began in 1982 as a conservative group of law school students at Harvard, Yale, and Chicago, to push back on what was then the dominant left leaning ideology in legal academia. Now, they control access to the judiciary anytime Republicans control either the White House or the Senate. Also, while he’s not a member to my knowledge, Merrick Garland has participated in FedSoc events, so they aren’t entirely without influence even among Democrats.
12 Likes
Seriously tho! This is why we NEED to be better as a society at understanding historical processes… If you can look into how movements, especially evolve over time, rather than just appearing out of nowhere to change the world, you can understand HOW to do that.
But here is me, screaming into the void yet again… 
15 Likes
Yeah, like . . . there’s absolutely no reason why there shouldn’t be a leftist version of FedSoc, but there’s not. There’s the American Constitution Society, but it wasn’t founded by students and it’s just never been able to gain a real foothold of influence anywhere. And I’m not sure why, but part of it is probably that it was formed in response to a specific event – the Bush-Gore SCOTUS decision – rather than being formed to promote an ideology. I don’t know. But it just hasn’t grown much.
ETA: I got curious if there was a local Kansas City chapter of the ACS. There is. They have no website of their own, and the only thing on their page on the ACS website is the names of their co-Presidents, and that there have been no recent events and there are no upcoming events. In contrast, the Kansas City chapter of FedSoc seems to have events every couple of months, and they seem to draw pretty good sized attendance. If I ever actually become a lawyer, I need to see if ACS would be something I could get involved with and try to help build up. The difference between the two groups is embarrasing.
15 Likes