I have never been satisfied at Robert’s lack of interest in how “his” FISA court wound up being so misused during the whole Russia Gate fiasco! He pretty much acted as if it never happened and even if it did, it was no big deal. Be interesting to see how much foot dragging goes on in the declassification process, still way too many bureaucratic traitors lurking in the cavernous halls of the government apparatus for my comfort, regardless of which agency and who’s in charge.
Ok, I read the Schlichter article: he mentions that 80% of "normals", his term, still support obedience to the judiciary. If he means US population, then, we need to know what MAGA wants. If the majority of MAGA wants action and Trump cannot deliver he risks losing his support in the midterm and JD's future chances. If he has MAGA support behind him he should say "to hell" to SCOTUS and the district courts. Right Now! If things get measurably, or noticeable, better, republicans will win the midterms and JD's run for the WH and no one will care about SCOTUS, and Roberts will get the message.
Or maybe Roberts is "on the take" or being coerced for some extremely embarrassing incident in his life, as has been suggested by other substack writers. "Stupid" or "Owned"? If "owned", Bondi and Patel need to dig deep and fast to find the USAID or Epstein or whatever connections and blow him up publicly, i.e. smear his name and reputation from one end of this country to the other.
Devil's advocate to support CJR - is there a case controversy before SC for it to make such guidance or declare penalties for judicial abuse? And if not isnt it fairly straightforward for DOJ to file as many appeals asap as needed, hundreds if it desires, raising the legal claims the DC judge lacks jurisdiction or otherwise defies the constitution? If no case bf the SC how is it to do the things Schl. urges?
In fact, DoJ has filed numerous appeals--including urgent calls for the SCOTUS to deal with the abuse of injunctions masquerading as TROs on an emergency basis. There's your case/controversy. Roberts has turned these down, over the vociferous objections of 4 conservative justices. Initially there appeared to be an argument for this approach. Now we see that Roberts' approach has simply encourage more bad faith lawfare.
It's Roberts' responsibility to see that the courts are not accomplices in shutting down the executive branch in this way. That's exactly the type of irresponsible refusal to act in a timely manner that will discredit the courts.
Didn't know that had happened thanks for replying. Is hard to believe that he is just whiffing on this analysis, this much and risking the critique you and others point out, he clearly w anticipate it. I wonder if the long game he's playing will pay off and in hindsight explain these interim steps.
I think Trump or his camp has also fired a full salvo across the bow of the SS Roberts with the news coming out that Mrs. Roberts has collected a lot of filthy lucre in ways that she probably shouldn't.
Just a point about "power of the purse." My understanding is the House alone controls "power of the purse" if it chooses to do so. Schlichter says, "the legislative branch has both the power of the purse and the power to impeach to check the judiciary." I mention this because lately I've seen other sources attributing power of the purse to "congress" or the "legislative branch." In Nov. 2010 when the Tea Party gave the GOP House a landslide of +63 seats it was mainly to make it very easy for the House to defund ObamaCare. The requirement was that the bill could contain absolutely nothing but the statement defunding ObamaCare. But the GOP didn't want to defund ObamaCare. So if they ever mentioned defunding it in a bill, they made sure to include at least one other issue such as passing "term limits"--which the Senate would never approve. Then the GOP could say, "we tried." At the time, someone mentioned this issue to Paul Ryan and he said we were mistaken, the House had no such power of the purse. The GOP was not happy that we gave them so many seats. They prefer being the permanent minority.
Indeed, smart men from time to time do stupid things, I just saw the reflection of one in my mirror. Robert's does not have ignorance, inexperience or youth as excuses. Justice Amy seems to be another one.
Roberts, CJ, could decide to resign in order to "spend more time with his family" or . . . for some other reason ??? Alternatively, Associate Justice Amy could decide that the toxic political atmosphere in DC these days is just too much for her delicate sensibilities to bear.
In the case of Barrett,I would guess that before he ever nominated her, Trump canvassed the squishiest, most chocolate eclair spined R senators and they wouldn't commit to voting for a judge like Rushing. The best he could get a signoff for was pathetic establishment ditz Barrett.
I have never been satisfied at Robert’s lack of interest in how “his” FISA court wound up being so misused during the whole Russia Gate fiasco! He pretty much acted as if it never happened and even if it did, it was no big deal. Be interesting to see how much foot dragging goes on in the declassification process, still way too many bureaucratic traitors lurking in the cavernous halls of the government apparatus for my comfort, regardless of which agency and who’s in charge.
Remember Obama's lie of the year? "If you like your healthcare you can keep your healthcare." https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/the-affordable-care-act-obamacare
Ok, I read the Schlichter article: he mentions that 80% of "normals", his term, still support obedience to the judiciary. If he means US population, then, we need to know what MAGA wants. If the majority of MAGA wants action and Trump cannot deliver he risks losing his support in the midterm and JD's future chances. If he has MAGA support behind him he should say "to hell" to SCOTUS and the district courts. Right Now! If things get measurably, or noticeable, better, republicans will win the midterms and JD's run for the WH and no one will care about SCOTUS, and Roberts will get the message.
Or maybe Roberts is "on the take" or being coerced for some extremely embarrassing incident in his life, as has been suggested by other substack writers. "Stupid" or "Owned"? If "owned", Bondi and Patel need to dig deep and fast to find the USAID or Epstein or whatever connections and blow him up publicly, i.e. smear his name and reputation from one end of this country to the other.
Devil's advocate to support CJR - is there a case controversy before SC for it to make such guidance or declare penalties for judicial abuse? And if not isnt it fairly straightforward for DOJ to file as many appeals asap as needed, hundreds if it desires, raising the legal claims the DC judge lacks jurisdiction or otherwise defies the constitution? If no case bf the SC how is it to do the things Schl. urges?
In fact, DoJ has filed numerous appeals--including urgent calls for the SCOTUS to deal with the abuse of injunctions masquerading as TROs on an emergency basis. There's your case/controversy. Roberts has turned these down, over the vociferous objections of 4 conservative justices. Initially there appeared to be an argument for this approach. Now we see that Roberts' approach has simply encourage more bad faith lawfare.
It's Roberts' responsibility to see that the courts are not accomplices in shutting down the executive branch in this way. That's exactly the type of irresponsible refusal to act in a timely manner that will discredit the courts.
Didn't know that had happened thanks for replying. Is hard to believe that he is just whiffing on this analysis, this much and risking the critique you and others point out, he clearly w anticipate it. I wonder if the long game he's playing will pay off and in hindsight explain these interim steps.
The only thing protecting Roberta now is his lifetime appointment. Otherwise the fool would be out on his ass. Pompous ninny in my book.
I think Trump or his camp has also fired a full salvo across the bow of the SS Roberts with the news coming out that Mrs. Roberts has collected a lot of filthy lucre in ways that she probably shouldn't.
I'd forgotten about that. Hard to figure how that didn't get more play.
Just a point about "power of the purse." My understanding is the House alone controls "power of the purse" if it chooses to do so. Schlichter says, "the legislative branch has both the power of the purse and the power to impeach to check the judiciary." I mention this because lately I've seen other sources attributing power of the purse to "congress" or the "legislative branch." In Nov. 2010 when the Tea Party gave the GOP House a landslide of +63 seats it was mainly to make it very easy for the House to defund ObamaCare. The requirement was that the bill could contain absolutely nothing but the statement defunding ObamaCare. But the GOP didn't want to defund ObamaCare. So if they ever mentioned defunding it in a bill, they made sure to include at least one other issue such as passing "term limits"--which the Senate would never approve. Then the GOP could say, "we tried." At the time, someone mentioned this issue to Paul Ryan and he said we were mistaken, the House had no such power of the purse. The GOP was not happy that we gave them so many seats. They prefer being the permanent minority.
Does the minority position get a larger taste of the corruption dollars?
There is still plenty of personal grift being the permanent minority.
Absolutely. They wanted to be left alone to partake of the grift without being bothered by annoying voters.
There you go. Those courageous GOP'ers.
Thanks for mentioning the late Angelo Codevilla and linking to his famous 2010 article which Rush Limbaugh read on the air in its entirety.
Indeed, smart men from time to time do stupid things, I just saw the reflection of one in my mirror. Robert's does not have ignorance, inexperience or youth as excuses. Justice Amy seems to be another one.
Roberts, CJ, could decide to resign in order to "spend more time with his family" or . . . for some other reason ??? Alternatively, Associate Justice Amy could decide that the toxic political atmosphere in DC these days is just too much for her delicate sensibilities to bear.
Can the situation with the Surpreme Court be as simple as globalists buying a couple of Surpeme court justices?
Everything seems to benefit globalism, and globalists brag about penetrating cabinets.
Occams razor.
Globalism is Zionism, they are one and the same. It's their long term con for total control.
In the case of Barrett,I would guess that before he ever nominated her, Trump canvassed the squishiest, most chocolate eclair spined R senators and they wouldn't commit to voting for a judge like Rushing. The best he could get a signoff for was pathetic establishment ditz Barrett.