5 ms·
> If you have any interest in taking a non-hysterical reaction to the ruling "The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with res
by hayst4ck 1y ago
> If you have any interest in taking a non-hysterical reaction to the ruling
"The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” Jackson wrote. “Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.”
Reacting to a (female) judge assessing that there is an existential threat to the rule of law, in an administration that has done everything to break through the boundaries of law and openly violates it is hardly "hysteria", especially when there is a track record of robbing people of due process, which is literally and precisely the executive asserting its supremacy over the judiciary by robbing it of the opportunity to make a ruling.
- mjburgess 1y agoYes, 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.