Sunday, April 23, 2023

History Lessons

It’s a sad situation. It’s also hardly unique in American history. There’s no doubt he could do it (or seriously try). There’s also no doubt this not how you win supporters and positively influence voters. Pretty much giving people a reason to be sure you don’t win, in fact. The Biden campaign won’t have to run any negative ads. They’ll just have to publicize Trump’s promises. Pretty much the way LBJ did it to Goldwater (LBJ didn’t win in a landslide on the strength of the “Daisy” ad). A pretty good description of a Trump supporter. While I have known people who fit this description, I also know they are not the majority of the country. I propose more public officials follow the example of Rep. Pelosi. Meanwhile, bravely ignoring the political hurricane 🌀 of the abortion battle. Chris Sununu made much the same argument on MTP.  Except Sununu argued for states rights but then don’t mention abortion because “loser!” (The issue that dare not speak its name.)

"I can't imagine the circumstances that I read about in the press in either of those cases," he remarked. "But at the end of the day, I just wonder, I wonder if it is some reflection of the fear the American people feel about the crime wave that's impacting our country, literally from coast to coast."
Oh, fuck me, that man is a goddamned idiot.
What was that Orwell said about seeing what is right in front of your nose? The elites gave security to make sure that doesn’t happen. I know tout le internet has talked about this, but Professor Vladeck does it like a lawyer. Appellate courts are supposed to confine themselves to the record (that is, facts) of the trial court. But Alito didn’t do that in the case of the praying football coach (who didn’t lose his job for praying after games; he was a contract employee who wasn’t offered a new contract), and he’s not doing it here. In essence, he’s proving the criticism of AOC and others: that the Court is acting as a super-legislature. The Congress is supposed to base its law making on facts (what hearings are for), but it’s not a strict rule that can invalidate a law by the breach. Courts, OTOH, are bounded by rules of evidence and procedure. Alito is blithely ignoring those, the better to establish his preferences. He’s acting like a member of a 9 person legislature. One that doesn’t answer to Congress, even though the Constitution explicitly allows Congress to set the number of Justices on the court, establish their tenure and qualifications, even set most of their jurisdiction.

Vladeck is saying a lot more than most commentators are. Alito isn’t throwing a tantrum. Alito is declaring a dangerous doctrine and precedent.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment