…sang the Mamas and the Papas. And that’s where we’re sitting now.
First, as a lawyer, let me tell you my take on the SCOTUS decision yesterday on the homeless camps. I can’t believe the case got that far: this is a concept I remember being disposed of in two sentences in my first year criminal law course: we do not punish crimes of status: BEING a vagrant, being an alcoholic. We can and we do criminalize voluntary behavior, even of vagrants and addicts: obstructing sidewalks, public intoxication. It’s just… nice to know that not everything I learned in law school has been superseded.
But what I want to ask you is, could all these good decisions, including overturning Chevron, and reducing the charges against the Jan 6 political prisoners, be just softening us up for the blow on the immunity decision?
What if in two days, the Supremes come down on Jack Smith’s side? We’ve had a couple wins now, does that mean we’re likely to suffer a big loss in the immunity case?
Then we have TWO disabled candidates, one mentally, one legally.
Of course it wouldn’t mean Trump has to drop out, but it might give the RINOs and Nevers renewed hope for shaking things up at the Convention. Maybe November won’t be Biden v. Trump; maybe it’ll be Newsom v. DiSantis. Whitmer v. Burgum? Harris v. Noem? Clinton v. ……idk, Cruz?
Monday, Monday: can’t trust that day. I’m dreading it.
Using Sarbanes Oxley act passed in 2002 was immoral and illegal and idiotic. The hubris of Garland and his lawyers in addition to their callous disregard for justice.
Let’s use a financial malfeasance law to incarcerate political dissidents. And they disrupted interstate commerce like farmer Filburn!
I am no lawyer but I predicted a blatant misuse of the Enron law would be rejected
How many people have ever heard of Filburn? It was the granddaddy of all decisions gutting the Bill of Rights. When I read it in law school, I was disgusted beyond words. It meant that the Commerce Clause ate the Constitution. These new decisions are surely welcome, but how effective?. Chevron has been its own form of abomination, but has now long been woven into the sea of regulation in which we are immersed. By itself, the decision won’t drain the ocean. I actually can’t see what the liberty-minded actors in place to act - will actually do. What needs to be done? What can be done?
Let me try to break the news gently – in today’s perversion of a “democratic republic”, it hardly matters who the candidates are, or who gets (s)elected.
We have seen both sides of this – “Joe Biden” is clearly not in charge, but the Administration rolls on regardless. President Trump was nominally in charge, but his Administration (backed by his “Republican” CongressScum) thwarted him at every turn.
The only “democratic” solution would be to elect a clean slate of House & Senate representatives who would use their power of the purse to gut the bureaucracy – and that’s not going to happen. Collapse is now inevitable. We just have to try to enjoy the ride.
The best form of term limits I have come across was the one that the State of New Mexico used to impose on its Governors – the sitting Governor is not eligible to run for re-election; he can run for election to Governor as often as he wants in his lifetime, but cannot serve consecutive terms.
I find it very annoying that politicians who are being paid to do a specific job for their constituents turn round and actually spend most of their time angling for their next election. It is as if I have hired a plumber by the hour, yet he spends most of his time on the phone and on the road looking for his next job instead of working on the job I have hired him for, while charging me for his time. We would not accept that kind of performance from a plumber; we should not accept it from our elected representatives.
Of course, New Mexico later changed its constitution to allow the Governor to serve consecutive terms. Political Class looking after itself again – is anyone surprised?
I think we have the result of the definitive experiment as to the unworkability of representative democracy. We have empirically proven that a representative republic “led” by individuals who lust for political office will fail every time - and fail miserably. Only those not desiring political office should be eligible to serve. To have any chance of success, officials must be drafted, not self-selected.
Thirty-seven states have some form of term limit on the office of governor, while thirteen states do not have any term limits[1].
The most common limit is two consecutive four-year terms, which applies to 23 states[1][2]. Nine states have a lifetime limit of two terms[1][4]. Virginia is the only state with a one-term limit[1][2].
Some states have variations on the consecutive term limit:
Indiana, Oregon, and Wyoming allow a pause of 1-2 terms before being eligible again[1][2]
Montana has a 2 consecutive term limit with a 2 term pause[1][2]
New Hampshire and Vermont have unlimited two-year terms[1][2][3]
Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have unlimited four-year terms[1][2][3][4]
Former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad holds the record for longest serving governor with 24 years in office[2].
This is basically good for Trump. I haven’t read it yet, but commentators are saying it means back to the lower court to determine what are official actions and what aren’t. So very likely no trial/verdict before Nov 5.
It also seems good for the presidency as an institution. Of COURSE a president can’t be fettered by worrying about criminal liability when he has to make the decisions he was elected to make.
I also like the bit (relying here on Andy McCarthy’s comments) that, as long as the action taken was itself legal and within the powers and function of the particular branch, courts won’t inquire into the govt’s motive. I worked as a municipal solicitor for years, so i’da thought this was, as we say “too well established to require citation”. I’m happy, as with the Fischer case, to have the Supreme Court confirm principles I would have thought were obvious, although it does seem incredible that the litigation had to go to the Supreme Court to get back to what I learned in first year of law school.
IS there a fly in the ointment? Yuh—because look who’s President right now and for the next 6.5 months! Ol’Bygone’s handlers get to avail themselves of this decision, too .
Sonya dissent is pathetic: too emotional for a justice. Stop being such a drama queen, my goodness
In 1999 Ken Starr wanted to prosecute Bill while he was in office. Robert Bork said no he cannot prosecute a President because he would imperil the Executive Branch
.