I no longer think the 6 conservative justices lean hard right, I believe they function as an arm of Heritage Foundation. SCOTUS actively works to implement 2025 plan.
In defensive of and fairness to the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, the Federalist Society and of course some of the Justices ... those sponsors are only getting what they paid good money for, right? Cough... $267,000 RV... cough... mother's house bought... cough... private school fees paid... cough. I mean, it's not like the Republican appointees have gone completely rogue and are behaving unexpectedly, is it?
Paraphrasing John Roberts chief justice,(whom I chiefly blame for our current mess);
“The scotus acts like a neutral arbitrator on the very thorny issues, like an umpire”
If that were true, then why are the results of the baseball game so predictable?
Turns out those difficult ‘thorny’ issues that they decide to take on, are easily decided in shadow docket with no discussion or rationale for the difficult decision. Bull shit
Trump is now the Supreme Court chief njustice. Just ask him.
Blow the lid wide open on the whole disgusting orgy of thieves that Epstein surrounded himself with.
Agreed... And I also suspect that they may also be agreeing to take cases which don't have a direct bearing on Project 2025, which creates opportunities for one of them to break from the rest of the majority and write a dissent.
I think it creates the "impression" of independent thinkers and moderation and is nothing of the sort.
I *really* wanted to reply to this with something that begins, "I feel a great disturbance in the Force..." but for the life of me I can't come up with anything on-topic or suitably pithy. Sigh.
In the final sentence to the ICE detention story, Liz asks us, "How will SCOTUS justify that one?"
I honestly don't think they will. They don't have to. And they don't care. The United States is a Kritocracy. And to borrow from Andrew, it is run by the Howler Monkey wing.
Pop quiz: What is the difference between having a country run by a single dictator and by 6 unelected, life-term "howler monkeys"? Answer: Not a lot.
Unless this white guy is LGBTQ, an out- spoken artist, gave money in support of DEIA causes, etc. As a previous person noted, they are coming for all of us who don't bow down to Emperor Cheato.
Just re-reading the comments, above, regarding Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, I went back and read the actual Court order. Section ii of the Order lists the defendants [starts p4, line 17 and it identifies the following named individuals:-
Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Todd Lyons, Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Rodney Scott, Commissioner of the US Customs and Border Protection Agency
Michael Banks, Chief of the US Border Patrol
Kash Patel, Director of the FBI
Pam Bondi, US Attorney General
Ernesto Santacruz Jr, Acting Field Office Director for the Los Angeles Field Office of ICE
Eddie Wang, US Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent for Los Angeles
Gregory Bovino, Chief Patrol Agent for the El Centro Sector of the CBP
D. Stalnaker, Acting Chief Patrol Agent for the Sandiego Sector of the CBP
Akil Davis, Assistant Director of the Los Angeles Office of the FBI
Bilal A Essayli [together with all other defendants] is the US Attorney for the Central District of California...
My question is: given that the vast majority of the individuals making arrests are masked and wearing no identifying masks [other than e.g. generic "FBI" or "ICE" jackets] - and many are in fact wearing full tactical gear; given that almost all of the vehicles being driven are rentals, what is the potential for the government to continue to operate and continue to arrest people, but then to claim that the individual making the arrest was not one of the explicitly mentioned groups. For example, what if they claimed that it was a member of a California Police Department acting in partnership with e.g. ICE, the DHS, or the FBI?
The problem is that irrespective of whether or not these actions are proportionate, lawful, or otherwise, they are being carried out in a way that is specifically designed to obscure the identity of the participants.
I appreciate that a ruse such as this might not last long, but consider a scenario where the Court summons Kash Patel in for questions and asks him, "Who is operating in {location?}, only to be told, in response, "I am sorry, your Honor, but I am afraid I do not know." It is conceivably possible that all the named individuals could adopt a "Plausible Deniability" defense and just carry on regardless.
Yes, I understand that this would seriously irritate the Judiciary. But let's be honest, what the administration seems to be doing throughout this is play for time, play a shell game, distort the truth.
Put this in slightly different terms... How can anyone know whether a person effecting an arrest in one of these raids is in fact a lawful deputy of the government and not simply some random extremist wearing tactical gear and driving around in a rental van? It just strikes me as perfect cover if you're a nutcase with a desire to go out and beat people up for an afternoon...
RE "...perfect cover if you're a nutcase with a desire to go out and beat people up for an afternoon..." Yep, that's already happened multiple times, including some of the pretenders raping their victims.
Not directly related to this post [sorry!], but something of possible interest...
Am I the only one who is wondering if Pete Hegseth's plan to bring all the leading/senior officers of the US military together in one place is simply a ruse - so that when they arrive they will be invited to take a "lie detector loyalty test" - and by getting them all in the same place at the same time, they make it impossible for an early "tested" officer to alert their colleagues by back-channel means?
Just thinking through potential plot lines for "Coup 2: Coup Harder!" and wondering if this would be a perfect way of allowing the administration to figure out who is likely to be a fanatical supporter and who is likely to be more of a Captain Brett Crozier...
I've been trying to come up with an explanation for why the DoW thinks it would be a sensible use of time and money - and a sensible balance of [concentration] risk vs. reward to have the entire command staff of the US military in the same place at the same time. I can't think of one, so applying the "Sherlock Holmes" principle [Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains - no matter how implausible - must be the truth], we start towards some pretty unsettling options.
I no longer think the 6 conservative justices lean hard right, I believe they function as an arm of Heritage Foundation. SCOTUS actively works to implement 2025 plan.
In defensive of and fairness to the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, the Federalist Society and of course some of the Justices ... those sponsors are only getting what they paid good money for, right? Cough... $267,000 RV... cough... mother's house bought... cough... private school fees paid... cough. I mean, it's not like the Republican appointees have gone completely rogue and are behaving unexpectedly, is it?
And the luxury private jet vacations and cruises.
Paraphrasing John Roberts chief justice,(whom I chiefly blame for our current mess);
“The scotus acts like a neutral arbitrator on the very thorny issues, like an umpire”
If that were true, then why are the results of the baseball game so predictable?
Turns out those difficult ‘thorny’ issues that they decide to take on, are easily decided in shadow docket with no discussion or rationale for the difficult decision. Bull shit
Trump is now the Supreme Court chief njustice. Just ask him.
Blow the lid wide open on the whole disgusting orgy of thieves that Epstein surrounded himself with.
Agreed... And I also suspect that they may also be agreeing to take cases which don't have a direct bearing on Project 2025, which creates opportunities for one of them to break from the rest of the majority and write a dissent.
I think it creates the "impression" of independent thinkers and moderation and is nothing of the sort.
I feel a great opportunity was missed by not referring to these as KKKavanaugh stops.
I *really* wanted to reply to this with something that begins, "I feel a great disturbance in the Force..." but for the life of me I can't come up with anything on-topic or suitably pithy. Sigh.
In the final sentence to the ICE detention story, Liz asks us, "How will SCOTUS justify that one?"
I honestly don't think they will. They don't have to. And they don't care. The United States is a Kritocracy. And to borrow from Andrew, it is run by the Howler Monkey wing.
Pop quiz: What is the difference between having a country run by a single dictator and by 6 unelected, life-term "howler monkeys"? Answer: Not a lot.
They are starting with people that look like they might speak Spanish. They will end coming for all of us who don't swear fealty to the Crown.
What a comforting explanation from a white guy who will never undergo this
Unless this white guy is LGBTQ, an out- spoken artist, gave money in support of DEIA causes, etc. As a previous person noted, they are coming for all of us who don't bow down to Emperor Cheato.
Just re-reading the comments, above, regarding Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, I went back and read the actual Court order. Section ii of the Order lists the defendants [starts p4, line 17 and it identifies the following named individuals:-
Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Todd Lyons, Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Rodney Scott, Commissioner of the US Customs and Border Protection Agency
Michael Banks, Chief of the US Border Patrol
Kash Patel, Director of the FBI
Pam Bondi, US Attorney General
Ernesto Santacruz Jr, Acting Field Office Director for the Los Angeles Field Office of ICE
Eddie Wang, US Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent for Los Angeles
Gregory Bovino, Chief Patrol Agent for the El Centro Sector of the CBP
D. Stalnaker, Acting Chief Patrol Agent for the Sandiego Sector of the CBP
Akil Davis, Assistant Director of the Los Angeles Office of the FBI
Bilal A Essayli [together with all other defendants] is the US Attorney for the Central District of California...
My question is: given that the vast majority of the individuals making arrests are masked and wearing no identifying masks [other than e.g. generic "FBI" or "ICE" jackets] - and many are in fact wearing full tactical gear; given that almost all of the vehicles being driven are rentals, what is the potential for the government to continue to operate and continue to arrest people, but then to claim that the individual making the arrest was not one of the explicitly mentioned groups. For example, what if they claimed that it was a member of a California Police Department acting in partnership with e.g. ICE, the DHS, or the FBI?
The problem is that irrespective of whether or not these actions are proportionate, lawful, or otherwise, they are being carried out in a way that is specifically designed to obscure the identity of the participants.
I appreciate that a ruse such as this might not last long, but consider a scenario where the Court summons Kash Patel in for questions and asks him, "Who is operating in {location?}, only to be told, in response, "I am sorry, your Honor, but I am afraid I do not know." It is conceivably possible that all the named individuals could adopt a "Plausible Deniability" defense and just carry on regardless.
Yes, I understand that this would seriously irritate the Judiciary. But let's be honest, what the administration seems to be doing throughout this is play for time, play a shell game, distort the truth.
Put this in slightly different terms... How can anyone know whether a person effecting an arrest in one of these raids is in fact a lawful deputy of the government and not simply some random extremist wearing tactical gear and driving around in a rental van? It just strikes me as perfect cover if you're a nutcase with a desire to go out and beat people up for an afternoon...
RE "...perfect cover if you're a nutcase with a desire to go out and beat people up for an afternoon..." Yep, that's already happened multiple times, including some of the pretenders raping their victims.
Not directly related to this post [sorry!], but something of possible interest...
Am I the only one who is wondering if Pete Hegseth's plan to bring all the leading/senior officers of the US military together in one place is simply a ruse - so that when they arrive they will be invited to take a "lie detector loyalty test" - and by getting them all in the same place at the same time, they make it impossible for an early "tested" officer to alert their colleagues by back-channel means?
Just thinking through potential plot lines for "Coup 2: Coup Harder!" and wondering if this would be a perfect way of allowing the administration to figure out who is likely to be a fanatical supporter and who is likely to be more of a Captain Brett Crozier...
I've been trying to come up with an explanation for why the DoW thinks it would be a sensible use of time and money - and a sensible balance of [concentration] risk vs. reward to have the entire command staff of the US military in the same place at the same time. I can't think of one, so applying the "Sherlock Holmes" principle [Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains - no matter how implausible - must be the truth], we start towards some pretty unsettling options.
Can folks think of any other possibilities?
“Kavanaugh Stop”. I like that. Sort of the functional opposite of “Miranda Warning”.
Whaddaya expect when you put a rummy on the bench?