I do love your writing and am so glad you’re independent now. But boy oh boy am I soooooooo sick of HumptyTrumpty already. His obsession with TikTok is likely because Truth Social is a cesspool and he wants fresh eyes to lie to. So much for the economy and all the campaign promises. He’s such a loser and waste of a human.
Hahhaha yah. WE knew it was never about gas and groceries. It was about staying out of jail and keeping promises to his rich donors who bought and paid for his presidency. AND….IF anyone has the balls to show the alleged proof of election fraud and or the gray area in A14S3 to stop the certification. SMH.
It doesn’t matter. That should be hammered in everday of his Presidency that he does not lower prices for American consumers overall, including grocery and gas prices!
It seems pretty obvious to me that the Supreme Court has been bought and paid for by the billionaires and they’ll let Trump do whatever he asks them to let him do. This idea that they are still voices of reason is absurd. They all said they wouldn’t get rid of Roe until they did.
Since he has grandly announced that he will attend President Carter's funeral, he will hear how respected and revered he is and have the opportunity to muse on what his eulogists will say.
There is absolutely no verifiable proof that Trump even knows what "muse" means much less is able to do it. I think it's safe to say that the id never "muses". Especially not his. Compliments of Merriam Webster:
"1
: to become absorbed in thought
especially : to think about something carefully and thoroughly
musing about what might have been
2
archaic : wonder, marvel
transitive verb
: to think or say (something) in a thoughtful way"
At this stage I fail to see how a spoiler brat like Donald J Trump can self-reflect on anything.
I think it is too late for him however I can see a path where external psychological pressures can lead him to finally do the right thing and behave (in appearance if not in spirit) like a real boy.
Trump's statement about President Carter was clearly enhanced by someone who has a clue about the appropriate language to use in such circumstances. The part that sounds like Trump is the recognition that Carter was a member of a very exclusive club -- e.g. U.S. Presidents (to which of course Trump also belongs, so don't think Carter was unique in that way!)
John Roberts’ recent comments in the New York Times article, where he expressed concern about the ridicule faced by judges, have garnered significant attention. If the Supreme Court is to rule in favor of Trump on this matter, it would be astonishing to witness the lack of judicial discretion and insensitivity displayed. But, at this point in time, it would seriously not surprise me.
This is all day-by-day so absurd, the whole Trump-2016 forward thing, I can't help thinking it's just an ongoing effort to abolish the Constitution. What better way to take cover than to declare support of the Constitution while actually working against it? There are some Justices who might fall into that class? Apparently, there is precedent for this idea?
And Plessy v. Ferguson. And while we're at it, let's just unwind this whole mess and overturn Marbury v. Madison and end SCOTUS's self-proclaimed power of judicial review.
Popok thinks Roberts will not rule favorably towards the convicted felon in the TikTok case based on his end of year rant in which he displays an impressive ability to gaslight the nation.
And here is Sauer, the Solicitor-General designate, yet again demonstrating his feckless and mindless obedience to his "client",all the while soiling his own bona fides before the Justices...Sauer - if approved by the Senate - will be the GOVERNMENT'S chief legal representative arguing cases on behalf of the GOVERNMENT, and not as a personal legal rep to client tRump, ffs. His presentation of this laughable "amicus" surely will derogate his own standing in future arguments before the Court, and one can only despair at the coming loss of Elizabeth Prelogar, the current SG, who had forcefully and compellingly argued for The People, as it were, during her term of office from early 2021 to the present.
Since when do people get to ask the court for things in an amicus brief? The brief itself should be rejected to spare all concerned from looking even stupider than they already do
Happy New Year to you and your team. I am so grateful to subscribe to your newsletter. It is wonderful how you can share your legal knowledge and explain it at our non- legal level.
Chief Justice Roberts testified that the court’s role is “to say what the law is” and to strike down acts of Congress that transgress it. “But,” he continued, “the Court has to appreciate that the reason they have that authority is because they’re interpreting the law, they’re not making policy, and to the extent they go beyond their confined limits and make policy or execute the law they lose their legitimacy.”
Unfortunately, the Robert's Supreme Court has demonstrated that they believe not one whit of the foregoing. They have added language to the Constitution that does not exist; they have discarded Stare Decisis; and they have usurped Congress's authority to make laws.
Based on the foregoing, I fully expect the Roberts Court to find (in other words, "make up") some "constitutional or other legal infirmities" (or singular, inconsequential infirmity) in order to comply with their Master's wish and enjoin the statute so He alone can fix it.
'To say what the law is'? That is the ultimate joke. In SCOTUS' quest to say what the law is, they made up the idea of Presidential immunity, which exists exactly nowhere in the Constitution. I've read it dozens of times and can find it precisely no place.
Now, Roberts is just making stuff up in his quest to serve his Orange master.
And he wonders why the public thinks so little of the Court.
So glad I discovered this to access more of your very pithy observations, especially as we enter the next Trump regime! And thank you for letting a non-paid subscriber (I will upgrade if I can afford it) comment.
And a question: Are amicus briefs just accepted or does SCOTUS vet them? If the latter, why is this brief before the court at all? It’s larded with pompous, unprovable statements unsupported by law.
I don’t closely follow the Supremes nowadays so I don’t want to speak about current practice. When I worked, I had to keep an eye on what was happening there. I do not recall hearing on the grapevine or seeing anything about an amicus brief being struck during those years. Briefs seldom get struck because of the merits of the argument; they get struck because someone has played fast and loose with the word count, but seldom because the argument stinks.
One thing he is not is a deal maker. He’s created this myth that he is but it’s obvious that he needs to take a course on how to negotiate. If I had the mistakes that he did when I was negotiating agreements, I would have been fired.
I do love your writing and am so glad you’re independent now. But boy oh boy am I soooooooo sick of HumptyTrumpty already. His obsession with TikTok is likely because Truth Social is a cesspool and he wants fresh eyes to lie to. So much for the economy and all the campaign promises. He’s such a loser and waste of a human.
He is not worth the air it takes to keep him alive.
Ya got that right. So vile.
Absolutely!
So, no grocery and gas rebates? I thought we'd get 'em as part of DAY 1 activities.
Hahhaha yah. WE knew it was never about gas and groceries. It was about staying out of jail and keeping promises to his rich donors who bought and paid for his presidency. AND….IF anyone has the balls to show the alleged proof of election fraud and or the gray area in A14S3 to stop the certification. SMH.
Does The Donald actually know what groceries are? You get those at Mickey D's right?
Hahahahaha he thinks he made the word up and apples are in the fridge at the store. He’s such a sick loser waste of life.
I know right, when is everyone going to understand Trump is a despicable liar. No, no grocery or gas rebates 🤦♀️👍
Maybe they won't say it, let alone understand it because they will be too embarrassed to admit it!
It doesn’t matter. That should be hammered in everday of his Presidency that he does not lower prices for American consumers overall, including grocery and gas prices!
It seems pretty obvious to me that the Supreme Court has been bought and paid for by the billionaires and they’ll let Trump do whatever he asks them to let him do. This idea that they are still voices of reason is absurd. They all said they wouldn’t get rid of Roe until they did.
Trump is the modern poster boy for narcissistic abuser.
May he be ridiculed forever ♾️
Since he has grandly announced that he will attend President Carter's funeral, he will hear how respected and revered he is and have the opportunity to muse on what his eulogists will say.
If I were in the Carter family, I would recuse the rotten pumpkin from attending. He is not welcome to defile President Carter’s legacy.
There is absolutely no verifiable proof that Trump even knows what "muse" means much less is able to do it. I think it's safe to say that the id never "muses". Especially not his. Compliments of Merriam Webster:
"1
: to become absorbed in thought
especially : to think about something carefully and thoroughly
musing about what might have been
2
archaic : wonder, marvel
transitive verb
: to think or say (something) in a thoughtful way"
To which the only viable response is, SAY WHAT?
What. There you Go ✌️
Thanks, Yves. A fitting response.
Well said!!!
Refuse and prohibit him, like a restraing order in a grand fashion! Banish him and any of his ilk
Another opportunity to defile a solemn occasion.
At this stage I fail to see how a spoiler brat like Donald J Trump can self-reflect on anything.
I think it is too late for him however I can see a path where external psychological pressures can lead him to finally do the right thing and behave (in appearance if not in spirit) like a real boy.
A good Joe..
He will have Habba write it up to his expectations of himself.
Trump's statement about President Carter was clearly enhanced by someone who has a clue about the appropriate language to use in such circumstances. The part that sounds like Trump is the recognition that Carter was a member of a very exclusive club -- e.g. U.S. Presidents (to which of course Trump also belongs, so don't think Carter was unique in that way!)
Even the scummy people he surrounds himself with must despise him
I am surprised his head hasn’t blown off from the intracranial pressure buildup from all that egomania
Shows how greedy and immoral his circle is that they will endure him. How complicit they are in ruining america
Not to mention the constant anger at how "unfair" his life is ...
Or that he doesn't have a dislocated shoulder from patting himself on his back constantly.
Would be even better if he broke his own neck
It occurs to me that the US is entering Russia political territory
Even if the monster is dispatched there are is a lineup of them right behind him wanting the top spot
Leonard Leo and his gang ready to throw more reaources at thwm
John Roberts’ recent comments in the New York Times article, where he expressed concern about the ridicule faced by judges, have garnered significant attention. If the Supreme Court is to rule in favor of Trump on this matter, it would be astonishing to witness the lack of judicial discretion and insensitivity displayed. But, at this point in time, it would seriously not surprise me.
This is all day-by-day so absurd, the whole Trump-2016 forward thing, I can't help thinking it's just an ongoing effort to abolish the Constitution. What better way to take cover than to declare support of the Constitution while actually working against it? There are some Justices who might fall into that class? Apparently, there is precedent for this idea?
Not infallible‼️They definitely got it wrong on Dred Scott v Sanford.
And Plessy v. Ferguson. And while we're at it, let's just unwind this whole mess and overturn Marbury v. Madison and end SCOTUS's self-proclaimed power of judicial review.
Popok thinks Roberts will not rule favorably towards the convicted felon in the TikTok case based on his end of year rant in which he displays an impressive ability to gaslight the nation.
Sauer should be sanctioned!
And here is Sauer, the Solicitor-General designate, yet again demonstrating his feckless and mindless obedience to his "client",all the while soiling his own bona fides before the Justices...Sauer - if approved by the Senate - will be the GOVERNMENT'S chief legal representative arguing cases on behalf of the GOVERNMENT, and not as a personal legal rep to client tRump, ffs. His presentation of this laughable "amicus" surely will derogate his own standing in future arguments before the Court, and one can only despair at the coming loss of Elizabeth Prelogar, the current SG, who had forcefully and compellingly argued for The People, as it were, during her term of office from early 2021 to the present.
Sanction Sauer!
Since when do people get to ask the court for things in an amicus brief? The brief itself should be rejected to spare all concerned from looking even stupider than they already do
Now that would be the ultimate smackdown — deny the future Solicitor General leave to file the amicus brief.
Instead they fast-track the hearing.
Happy New Year to you and your team. I am so grateful to subscribe to your newsletter. It is wonderful how you can share your legal knowledge and explain it at our non- legal level.
Chief Justice Roberts testified that the court’s role is “to say what the law is” and to strike down acts of Congress that transgress it. “But,” he continued, “the Court has to appreciate that the reason they have that authority is because they’re interpreting the law, they’re not making policy, and to the extent they go beyond their confined limits and make policy or execute the law they lose their legitimacy.”
Unfortunately, the Robert's Supreme Court has demonstrated that they believe not one whit of the foregoing. They have added language to the Constitution that does not exist; they have discarded Stare Decisis; and they have usurped Congress's authority to make laws.
Based on the foregoing, I fully expect the Roberts Court to find (in other words, "make up") some "constitutional or other legal infirmities" (or singular, inconsequential infirmity) in order to comply with their Master's wish and enjoin the statute so He alone can fix it.
'To say what the law is'? That is the ultimate joke. In SCOTUS' quest to say what the law is, they made up the idea of Presidential immunity, which exists exactly nowhere in the Constitution. I've read it dozens of times and can find it precisely no place.
Now, Roberts is just making stuff up in his quest to serve his Orange master.
And he wonders why the public thinks so little of the Court.
So glad I discovered this to access more of your very pithy observations, especially as we enter the next Trump regime! And thank you for letting a non-paid subscriber (I will upgrade if I can afford it) comment.
I just subscribed! Well worth the $80 annual fee to support truth-tellers like Harry.
I like your writing and am very glad I can find rationality here. Tanks for that.
Your work is highly instructive. Thank you.
And a question: Are amicus briefs just accepted or does SCOTUS vet them? If the latter, why is this brief before the court at all? It’s larded with pompous, unprovable statements unsupported by law.
They changed the rule in January 2023: one no longer needs to obtain the parties’ consent or file a motion for leave to file the brief.
Okay, but can SCOTUS still reject an amicus brief, yes? If so, why was this one allowed? Its points seem bombast not based in law.
Thank you! It’s tough sometimes to understand motives of semi-deities …
I don’t closely follow the Supremes nowadays so I don’t want to speak about current practice. When I worked, I had to keep an eye on what was happening there. I do not recall hearing on the grapevine or seeing anything about an amicus brief being struck during those years. Briefs seldom get struck because of the merits of the argument; they get struck because someone has played fast and loose with the word count, but seldom because the argument stinks.
One thing he is not is a deal maker. He’s created this myth that he is but it’s obvious that he needs to take a course on how to negotiate. If I had the mistakes that he did when I was negotiating agreements, I would have been fired.
Is this like his deal-making expertise he displayed as non-President that Putin soundly rejected and laughed at?
Perhaps Trump hopes that SCOTUS will add absolute sovereignty to Trump’s near total immunity. For all pales under his brilliant sunlight.