I've a question for this forum. Is anyone, besides me, tired of reading the leftist phrase "our democracy" used over and over again in the comments when referring to our foundational form of governance? We do NOT live in a "democracy". We live in a democratic constitutional REPUBLIC! We need to quit reinforcing the leftist talking point "our democracy". It just serves to lend credence to their mindless plebiscite, socialist and ultimately oligarch narrative.
Sadly, certain members of a "separate and equal" branch of government, the Supreme Court, are being dragged through the political mud by a by a bunch of people who really do know better yet persist in their venomous attack on our democracy. From a president, who is out of touch with reality, to Associate Justices, who act like political activists in their dissent, to members of a congress incapable of governing, the left is actively destroying the very foundation of our culture and our society. Is there limit to their destructive behavior?
I don't care what anyone thinks of the Republicans: it's insanity to vote Democrat.
Perhaps the bigger, more instructive takeaway is how so much of the Democratic leadership is acting like childish little b-tches (sorry, the term really best evokes the behavior, best describes the gross, possibly treasonous accusations Biden, Schumer and others are making against the Supreme Court, simply because they didn't get their way.
The Grants Pass case was quite significant as well. If anyone can commandeer the public space because they are 'involuntarily homeless' which I'd say is a complete fiction, what can't they do? If misfortune or poor planning elevates you above the law, then all behaviors are excused, and there is no more public space or public order. This seems to be the goal of the progressive liberals. They hate the personal discipline that is takes to live freely, and view everyone as children. The reasoning in the dissent is infantile fantasy.
The Constitution’s impeachment clause gives Congress—not federal or state courts—sole jurisdiction over crimes presidents may commit while in office. It gives Congress authority to indict and try presidents for “high for high crimes and misdemeanors” they may commit while in office. This does not place presidents above the law. Although the impeachment clause limits punishment Congress may impose to removal from office, it provides that presidents tried and convicted by the Senate “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” But it does not say that presidents not impeached by Congress or presidents impeached, tried and acquitted by the Senate are liable to subsequent to indictment, judgment and punishment by federal or state courts.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling actually erodes presidential immunity. The court relied on judicial precedent and the Federalist Papers to suggest that presidential immunity to prosecution by state and federal courts applies only to official acts, not unofficial acts. But the Constitution makes no such distinction. The reference to “high crimes and misdemeanors” applies to all crimes.
Hopefully soon, the Supreme Court will reverse the erroneous ruling that allows executive agencies to supplant Congress's duty and responsibility, as written in the first sentence of Article 1 of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . ."
Totally agree with you on the immunity case. It seems the core duties that are covered by absolute immunity are those detailed in Article II of the Constitution. Some may have been added here and there in the Constitution, but beyond that anything else is merely presumptive and needs to be litigated to find out if the presumption is worth holding onto or if the President is being presumptuous.
"Standing" seems to be a cop out. What citizen, in a voting republic, that is barred from seeing information that would change their vote--> by a government that wouldn't want that vote changed... does not have standing?
Yes, *our* standing is obfuscated by the term 'free speech'. Nobody has a right to a (figurative) platform and a microphone, yadda, yadda. But the federal government is interfering in the freedom to *listen* to the thoughts of another, to engage our freedom of *inquiry* to correct our own misconceptions. And that right should be nearly absolute. I have an immediate partial remedy that perhaps can be reached in a different case: all jawboning must occur in public view. Want, e.g., Jay Bhattacharya silenced on X/Twitter? The gov't officials should say so, in a tweet, and a required notification to Bhattacharya himself via registered mail or similar. And then they may reap the Streisand Effect. There might be extremely limited circumstances involving national security where this should not apply, and those cases should reach a judge.
The ever growing list of government experts being catastrophically wrong should be evidence enough that deference should be to science, not the scientist. A basic understanding of the scientific method needs to be basic training for everyone in the justice system.
In his summary of the Loper Bright majority opinion, Professor Rubenfeld notes: "If Congress wants agencies to have the interpretive power, and require courts to defer to agency interpretations, Congress just has to say so." My problem with that is that Congress has ALWAYS had the power to limit the scope of administrative agency powers, but for various reasons, fails to do so. I'm not saying that the faillure to do so is a bad thing--the agencies have the expertise that Congress lacks and the courts lack. The real impact of this decision is that lobbyists for regulated industries do not need to try to get Congress to do their bidding to overturn or dilute regulations they don't like. Now they will have a much easier time doing this through ideologically friendly judges.
I've seen this argument all over the place. I don't think it is as simple to "forum shop" these cases as it has been made out to be, and, in fact, the two courts that try the most administrative agency cases are the D.C. Circuit and the 9th Circuit - neither of which is particularly friendly to regulated industries.
Listening to the dispassionate logic and reason Professor Rubenfeld is like going back in time 50 years, as that is what I imagine a Yale law professor talked like in the 1970’s. I can’t believe he has not been run out of Yale law school yet.
Even going back 50 years, Yale law school was notoriously liberal. I think the Federalist Society was founded there in the early 1980s, by students who wanted to hear "the other side of the story."
Yes, but as we have learned over the past decade, the modern progressive left has nothing in common with the old liberal left and in fact, is completely illiberal. For example, the modern day ACLU is most often opposing free speech - it makes your head spin.
Having just done some research on Professor Rubenfeld, I am heartened to learn that the progressive/Woke mob did try to smear and bully him, he just didn’t cave like most do. Now, I am an even bigger fan, as he is brilliant and brave.
All of these takes is exactly how I read them. People are really short-sighted in what they think they want. I am in agreement with the courts on everything, though I was disappointed that standing was not proven.
I've a question for this forum. Is anyone, besides me, tired of reading the leftist phrase "our democracy" used over and over again in the comments when referring to our foundational form of governance? We do NOT live in a "democracy". We live in a democratic constitutional REPUBLIC! We need to quit reinforcing the leftist talking point "our democracy". It just serves to lend credence to their mindless plebiscite, socialist and ultimately oligarch narrative.
Sadly, certain members of a "separate and equal" branch of government, the Supreme Court, are being dragged through the political mud by a by a bunch of people who really do know better yet persist in their venomous attack on our democracy. From a president, who is out of touch with reality, to Associate Justices, who act like political activists in their dissent, to members of a congress incapable of governing, the left is actively destroying the very foundation of our culture and our society. Is there limit to their destructive behavior?
I don't care what anyone thinks of the Republicans: it's insanity to vote Democrat.
Thank you, this was a very helpful synopsis
Perhaps the bigger, more instructive takeaway is how so much of the Democratic leadership is acting like childish little b-tches (sorry, the term really best evokes the behavior, best describes the gross, possibly treasonous accusations Biden, Schumer and others are making against the Supreme Court, simply because they didn't get their way.
The Grants Pass case was quite significant as well. If anyone can commandeer the public space because they are 'involuntarily homeless' which I'd say is a complete fiction, what can't they do? If misfortune or poor planning elevates you above the law, then all behaviors are excused, and there is no more public space or public order. This seems to be the goal of the progressive liberals. They hate the personal discipline that is takes to live freely, and view everyone as children. The reasoning in the dissent is infantile fantasy.
The Constitution’s impeachment clause gives Congress—not federal or state courts—sole jurisdiction over crimes presidents may commit while in office. It gives Congress authority to indict and try presidents for “high for high crimes and misdemeanors” they may commit while in office. This does not place presidents above the law. Although the impeachment clause limits punishment Congress may impose to removal from office, it provides that presidents tried and convicted by the Senate “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” But it does not say that presidents not impeached by Congress or presidents impeached, tried and acquitted by the Senate are liable to subsequent to indictment, judgment and punishment by federal or state courts.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling actually erodes presidential immunity. The court relied on judicial precedent and the Federalist Papers to suggest that presidential immunity to prosecution by state and federal courts applies only to official acts, not unofficial acts. But the Constitution makes no such distinction. The reference to “high crimes and misdemeanors” applies to all crimes.
Where is article audio!?
Hopefully soon, the Supreme Court will reverse the erroneous ruling that allows executive agencies to supplant Congress's duty and responsibility, as written in the first sentence of Article 1 of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . ."
So grateful for the levelheaded analysis in the story itself and the comments. This is why you don't turn off comments, Free Press.🙂
My bad, I thought ACB was a woman. Probably a trans that tricked his body into having half a dozen kids.
Totally agree with you on the immunity case. It seems the core duties that are covered by absolute immunity are those detailed in Article II of the Constitution. Some may have been added here and there in the Constitution, but beyond that anything else is merely presumptive and needs to be litigated to find out if the presumption is worth holding onto or if the President is being presumptuous.
"Standing" seems to be a cop out. What citizen, in a voting republic, that is barred from seeing information that would change their vote--> by a government that wouldn't want that vote changed... does not have standing?
Yes, *our* standing is obfuscated by the term 'free speech'. Nobody has a right to a (figurative) platform and a microphone, yadda, yadda. But the federal government is interfering in the freedom to *listen* to the thoughts of another, to engage our freedom of *inquiry* to correct our own misconceptions. And that right should be nearly absolute. I have an immediate partial remedy that perhaps can be reached in a different case: all jawboning must occur in public view. Want, e.g., Jay Bhattacharya silenced on X/Twitter? The gov't officials should say so, in a tweet, and a required notification to Bhattacharya himself via registered mail or similar. And then they may reap the Streisand Effect. There might be extremely limited circumstances involving national security where this should not apply, and those cases should reach a judge.
The ever growing list of government experts being catastrophically wrong should be evidence enough that deference should be to science, not the scientist. A basic understanding of the scientific method needs to be basic training for everyone in the justice system.
In his summary of the Loper Bright majority opinion, Professor Rubenfeld notes: "If Congress wants agencies to have the interpretive power, and require courts to defer to agency interpretations, Congress just has to say so." My problem with that is that Congress has ALWAYS had the power to limit the scope of administrative agency powers, but for various reasons, fails to do so. I'm not saying that the faillure to do so is a bad thing--the agencies have the expertise that Congress lacks and the courts lack. The real impact of this decision is that lobbyists for regulated industries do not need to try to get Congress to do their bidding to overturn or dilute regulations they don't like. Now they will have a much easier time doing this through ideologically friendly judges.
I've seen this argument all over the place. I don't think it is as simple to "forum shop" these cases as it has been made out to be, and, in fact, the two courts that try the most administrative agency cases are the D.C. Circuit and the 9th Circuit - neither of which is particularly friendly to regulated industries.
Listening to the dispassionate logic and reason Professor Rubenfeld is like going back in time 50 years, as that is what I imagine a Yale law professor talked like in the 1970’s. I can’t believe he has not been run out of Yale law school yet.
Even going back 50 years, Yale law school was notoriously liberal. I think the Federalist Society was founded there in the early 1980s, by students who wanted to hear "the other side of the story."
Yes, but as we have learned over the past decade, the modern progressive left has nothing in common with the old liberal left and in fact, is completely illiberal. For example, the modern day ACLU is most often opposing free speech - it makes your head spin.
Having just done some research on Professor Rubenfeld, I am heartened to learn that the progressive/Woke mob did try to smear and bully him, he just didn’t cave like most do. Now, I am an even bigger fan, as he is brilliant and brave.
All of these takes is exactly how I read them. People are really short-sighted in what they think they want. I am in agreement with the courts on everything, though I was disappointed that standing was not proven.