HIs comments are insightful and all true but i think what is left out of this, and I'm sure purposely left out as it's supposition, is that the Court is finally beginning to understand what they've done by granting Trump unlimited power. They are beginning to understand that, with that power, trump will effectively make them, the Supreme Court, redundant to the point where he will eventually just remove them altogether. This appears to be the first steps on their part to rein him in before he can reach that level.
When it is distilled by a knowledgeable jurist, the actions/decisions by the SC are a critical part of keeping our democracy. Thank you for the explanation.
Excellent analysis, may i say, as a 43-year licensed attorney.
But I comment to speak to your last point, about the readers of independent journalism.
The fact that we have to pay a six-buck or greater monthly fee to read each and every independent journalist points to a weakness of this substack world. If I paid six bucks to each of the fine writers, let alone the second-tier ones who might one day be fine, I would be shelling out hundreds each month. I'd rather donate that to the ACLU. I would love to see you all get together, much as the Bulwark has done, maybe as "the Contrarian" (unfortunate name) intends to do. I'd rather pay one entity and let them shell out dollars to their participants, if that's possible. There is strength in numbers, and efficiency.
Although I’ve seen writers join together under one name, often the writers have their own Substack on which they post more or do videos. And those have a separate cost.
I follow a real hodgepodge of writers and don’t see them being under one banner.
The only solution I see is to go to a one, higher subscription cost to encompass all of Substack. Maybe payable to Substack to then distribute to the writers???
Or maybe pay a fee to each “category” of writing to then have full access to that category. News, politics, international, home, arts, etc.
I’ve ended up subscribing to so many because I want a fuller experience. I’m going to have to winnow them down next year. It’s just not sustainable.
I’m in love with this independent model but it hurts the bottom line. Especially as more writers join Substack.
Keeping in mind that anyone can read substack posts (or at least the ones most of us read). The monthly or annual discounted fee enables readers to comment and Like other comments. So, those who can afford to pay should pay and those whose wallets are thin (or thinning given current economic events) should continue to benefit from the content that others among us pay to support.
I myself have been considering which paid subscriptions I can bring myself to cancel - my annual outlay has grown substantially. If my Social Security check and associated Medicare payment cease, I'll have to make some difficult choices.
Whole heartedly agree. The substack model is simply unsustainable. Keep in mind that a great newspaper, like Wapo used to be, could be had for $120/year; and we got daily opinion from a number of top-flight opinion writers. I also understand that this 'new' model is different, but our support/wallets are stuck in that past..
Excellent idea Corrine! Ive thought the same; I’d love to support more, but my wallet is only so thick. Zeteo, a new substack of several writers including Kim Whele, a constitutional lawyer is trying this. I think it could be a good model!
Just a few snippets of what you wrote show what unprecedented times we are in and that there is nastiness afoot:
"...this Administration can't be trusted..." and "...persuade the Court of the Administration's bad faith." My god, what the hell. I spent most of my career in federal court, and just those words in context, or even out of context, are bone-chilling and frightening. Thank you for your insight.
We on the outside may never know, but I wonder if anyone in DOJ told any of the upper echelon that playing 3-card monte with federal judges wasn’t going to end well for DOJ or, more broadly, the Administration.
For those of us who are not lawyers, your explanations in plain language are invaluable! Thank you for adding these finer points after you had thought about it further. You are deciphering both the written messages of judges, but also what their action language means or may mean. For those of us outside the circle it’s very difficult to pick up the nuances of what is being said through action.
Your point about the advantages of Substack writers over conventional journalism is also very important for us to digest. Are there different parameters placed on more conventional journalists so that they cannot speculate about things as you are doing? I need to understand more about what it’s like to be a journalist in these different venues.
I’ve been trying to figure out where the best place to contribute monetarily is in this chaotic time. You’re convincing me that contributing to Substack to give it sustenance and freedom may be the best place at least in the short run to contribute my financial efforts.
I can’t thank you enough for the work that you are doing. Leslie
Reading and contributing monetarily to news on Substack is indeed the way to go. However, as Corinne Corley correctly points out, the problem with Substack's current approach is that readers are expected to pay monthly fees to each Substack contributor, which commitment entails requiring readers to shell out a lot more money each month than most of us can afford or should reasonably be expected to pay.
Keeping in mind that anyone can read substack posts (or at least the ones most of us read). The monthly or annual discounted fee enables readers to comment and Like other comments. So, those who can afford to pay should pay and those whose wallets are thin (or thinning given current economic events) should continue to benefit from the content that others among us pay to support.
I myself have been considering which paid subscriptions I can bring myself to cancel - my annual outlay has grown substantially. If my Social Security check and associated Medicare payment cease, I'll have to make some difficult choices.
Harry ( I am being presumptuous using your first name.) Your substance is right on! I'm a Canadian and as such want you and all of the Mideas Touch Contributers, Democrats and all American people to know we are behind you. We want our American friends to join together to defrock this President you have! Elbows Up my friends!
I am thinking of the climax of Judgment at Nuremburg, where Burt Lancaster--who played a respected jurist who had accepted the Nazis and repented at his trial--asks to see Spencer Tracy (playing a District Court judge called to serve on the court). Lancaster says to Tracy that he wants him to know that if he had understood what it was going to come to, he never would have gone along with the Nazis. With a look of total incomprehension on his face, Tracy replies, "But it came to that the first time you condemned a man you knew was innocent." At least some of our judges understand.
Very insightful not to mention alarming. One has to wonder what leads Alito and Thomas to disregard so much of the law, constitution and common decency in order to placate Trump and his administration? I do have to add that all this brazenness was born by the whole conservative wing of the SC giving Trump perceived, if not actual immunity from repercussions for acts legal and illegal.
The substack community of independent journalists has been blowing traditional media out of the water precisely because it provides the quick, knowledgeable, and insightful coverage that is missing from mainstream media.
The Abrego-Garcia situation is awful. But can you imagine if he is killed while in custody in El Salvador? We'll have to hold someone in the US Government accountable for his murder. Someone in the Government must be held up in public as "The Guy (or Girl)". Our Government is paying money to someone to hold an innocent person. Therefore, we are responsible.
I would only ask that you refrain from referring to this cabal as an "Administration". Please call them what they are: a regime. Otherwise, thank you for your concise analysis.
Thank you for writing this follow up! Your insight on the Supreme Court is invaluable!
HIs comments are insightful and all true but i think what is left out of this, and I'm sure purposely left out as it's supposition, is that the Court is finally beginning to understand what they've done by granting Trump unlimited power. They are beginning to understand that, with that power, trump will effectively make them, the Supreme Court, redundant to the point where he will eventually just remove them altogether. This appears to be the first steps on their part to rein him in before he can reach that level.
Yes. This was clear from the start and hubris is the only reason I can think of that might excuse them from seeing it.
When it is distilled by a knowledgeable jurist, the actions/decisions by the SC are a critical part of keeping our democracy. Thank you for the explanation.
Excellent analysis, may i say, as a 43-year licensed attorney.
But I comment to speak to your last point, about the readers of independent journalism.
The fact that we have to pay a six-buck or greater monthly fee to read each and every independent journalist points to a weakness of this substack world. If I paid six bucks to each of the fine writers, let alone the second-tier ones who might one day be fine, I would be shelling out hundreds each month. I'd rather donate that to the ACLU. I would love to see you all get together, much as the Bulwark has done, maybe as "the Contrarian" (unfortunate name) intends to do. I'd rather pay one entity and let them shell out dollars to their participants, if that's possible. There is strength in numbers, and efficiency.
Although I’ve seen writers join together under one name, often the writers have their own Substack on which they post more or do videos. And those have a separate cost.
I follow a real hodgepodge of writers and don’t see them being under one banner.
The only solution I see is to go to a one, higher subscription cost to encompass all of Substack. Maybe payable to Substack to then distribute to the writers???
Or maybe pay a fee to each “category” of writing to then have full access to that category. News, politics, international, home, arts, etc.
I’ve ended up subscribing to so many because I want a fuller experience. I’m going to have to winnow them down next year. It’s just not sustainable.
I’m in love with this independent model but it hurts the bottom line. Especially as more writers join Substack.
Keeping in mind that anyone can read substack posts (or at least the ones most of us read). The monthly or annual discounted fee enables readers to comment and Like other comments. So, those who can afford to pay should pay and those whose wallets are thin (or thinning given current economic events) should continue to benefit from the content that others among us pay to support.
I myself have been considering which paid subscriptions I can bring myself to cancel - my annual outlay has grown substantially. If my Social Security check and associated Medicare payment cease, I'll have to make some difficult choices.
Whole heartedly agree. The substack model is simply unsustainable. Keep in mind that a great newspaper, like Wapo used to be, could be had for $120/year; and we got daily opinion from a number of top-flight opinion writers. I also understand that this 'new' model is different, but our support/wallets are stuck in that past..
Excellent idea Corrine! Ive thought the same; I’d love to support more, but my wallet is only so thick. Zeteo, a new substack of several writers including Kim Whele, a constitutional lawyer is trying this. I think it could be a good model!
Wholeheartedly agree. Please see my response to Leslie below.
Just a few snippets of what you wrote show what unprecedented times we are in and that there is nastiness afoot:
"...this Administration can't be trusted..." and "...persuade the Court of the Administration's bad faith." My god, what the hell. I spent most of my career in federal court, and just those words in context, or even out of context, are bone-chilling and frightening. Thank you for your insight.
We on the outside may never know, but I wonder if anyone in DOJ told any of the upper echelon that playing 3-card monte with federal judges wasn’t going to end well for DOJ or, more broadly, the Administration.
Thank you. Terrifying to see American justice teetering on the precipice .
For those of us who are not lawyers, your explanations in plain language are invaluable! Thank you for adding these finer points after you had thought about it further. You are deciphering both the written messages of judges, but also what their action language means or may mean. For those of us outside the circle it’s very difficult to pick up the nuances of what is being said through action.
Your point about the advantages of Substack writers over conventional journalism is also very important for us to digest. Are there different parameters placed on more conventional journalists so that they cannot speculate about things as you are doing? I need to understand more about what it’s like to be a journalist in these different venues.
I’ve been trying to figure out where the best place to contribute monetarily is in this chaotic time. You’re convincing me that contributing to Substack to give it sustenance and freedom may be the best place at least in the short run to contribute my financial efforts.
I can’t thank you enough for the work that you are doing. Leslie
Reading and contributing monetarily to news on Substack is indeed the way to go. However, as Corinne Corley correctly points out, the problem with Substack's current approach is that readers are expected to pay monthly fees to each Substack contributor, which commitment entails requiring readers to shell out a lot more money each month than most of us can afford or should reasonably be expected to pay.
Keeping in mind that anyone can read substack posts (or at least the ones most of us read). The monthly or annual discounted fee enables readers to comment and Like other comments. So, those who can afford to pay should pay and those whose wallets are thin (or thinning given current economic events) should continue to benefit from the content that others among us pay to support.
I myself have been considering which paid subscriptions I can bring myself to cancel - my annual outlay has grown substantially. If my Social Security check and associated Medicare payment cease, I'll have to make some difficult choices.
Always looking forward to your reports, explanations, and commentary.
Harry ( I am being presumptuous using your first name.) Your substance is right on! I'm a Canadian and as such want you and all of the Mideas Touch Contributers, Democrats and all American people to know we are behind you. We want our American friends to join together to defrock this President you have! Elbows Up my friends!
I am thinking of the climax of Judgment at Nuremburg, where Burt Lancaster--who played a respected jurist who had accepted the Nazis and repented at his trial--asks to see Spencer Tracy (playing a District Court judge called to serve on the court). Lancaster says to Tracy that he wants him to know that if he had understood what it was going to come to, he never would have gone along with the Nazis. With a look of total incomprehension on his face, Tracy replies, "But it came to that the first time you condemned a man you knew was innocent." At least some of our judges understand.
Very insightful not to mention alarming. One has to wonder what leads Alito and Thomas to disregard so much of the law, constitution and common decency in order to placate Trump and his administration? I do have to add that all this brazenness was born by the whole conservative wing of the SC giving Trump perceived, if not actual immunity from repercussions for acts legal and illegal.
The substack community of independent journalists has been blowing traditional media out of the water precisely because it provides the quick, knowledgeable, and insightful coverage that is missing from mainstream media.
The Abrego-Garcia situation is awful. But can you imagine if he is killed while in custody in El Salvador? We'll have to hold someone in the US Government accountable for his murder. Someone in the Government must be held up in public as "The Guy (or Girl)". Our Government is paying money to someone to hold an innocent person. Therefore, we are responsible.
Harry, as an attorney for 41 years I really appreciate your thoughts and analysis, Thank you.
I would only ask that you refrain from referring to this cabal as an "Administration". Please call them what they are: a regime. Otherwise, thank you for your concise analysis.
Thank you for the update!