22 Comments
User's avatar
Carole Allen's avatar

It feels like a contradiction to call the six the "conservative majority". Nothing conservative about this affront to our democracy and past norms. They are the radical right, and should be so identified.

Expand full comment
Mike Brock's avatar

I think this is too strong of a take.

Expand full comment
Susan Britton's avatar

This judgement ends democracy. It provides Trump the power to end elections. A challenge would take a long time to get to SCOTUS and they would rule against it along party lines. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight. We just need to recognize what we're up against in order to fight.

Expand full comment
Mike Brock's avatar

It doesn't end democracy. We should be measured in our judgements, I think. But it certainly emboldens power and gives it more space to challenge democracy and operate outside of law.

Expand full comment
Sally Gordon-Mark's avatar

Mike, please clarify something for me. If the Constitution can now be disregarded by the executive branch, then why do you say that our democracy hasn’t ended? Perhaps it hasn’t ended yet as long as there are still elections. But investigative reporting by Greg Pallast has revealed that many black voters have already lost their voting rights and will in the future. Already elections won’t be fair. What will be the line that’s crossed for you to say that we are living under an authoritarian regime ?

Expand full comment
Beth keller's avatar

I am thinking that using the term fight and s going to mean something very different than it has the past few months. I think revolt is definitely appropriate for what we will have to do to stop this...and I feel like it is getting to the point where it's inevitable.

I'm willing to do what I need to for mine and my families freedom though. The only thing I worry about in that happening would be my 75year old mom.

Expand full comment
Rob's avatar

Is it possible that the reason the court used this case to get rid of national injunctions is because this is so obviously unconstitutional? Maybe they think when they rule against the government, it will show they are capable of protecting the constitution and that the new system works.

Expand full comment
mike kibler's avatar

Presently if you don’t like an executive order you find a federal judge to rule it can’t take effective until a hearing of appeals court has ruled on the order. The majority of the Supreme Court has stated that practice doesn’t comply with the Constitution. That is all it says. The implications are multiple but right now that is all it means.

Expand full comment
Wanda Sciarrino's avatar

This is what Cheeto meant with the 'next it's the Homegrowns'. Interesting. It's almost like this was decided some time ago and 'a given' it was going to happen. Supreme Court is worthless right now. Absolutely worthless except for fascists.

Expand full comment
Charley Ice's avatar

Again: this is not "conservative". This is reactionary, regressive, anti-Constitutional. We the People are the guardrail. Get busy. Democracy is in the doing, not in the thinking about somebody should be doing something different.

Expand full comment
Daniel Pareja's avatar

John Roberts calls balls and strikes, but his strike zone for Republicans is not the same as that for Democrats.

Expand full comment
DrJoe's avatar

Absolutely horribly written. Once again, virtue signaling has crept into these essays along with identity politics. Justice Barrett surprisingly has recently ruled more times than not with the liberal dissent than the conservative majority. The 14th amendment grant citizenship and equal rights to enslaved African-Americans. Dreamers never were citizens. Should they be allowed to stay in the United States after 20+ years? The answer is yes but the current 20 million illegal immigrants depending on which number you choose are not citizens and are not entitled to any constitutional protection. This article is nonsensical.

Expand full comment
Mike Brock's avatar

You haven't addressed the substance of anything I've said.

Expand full comment
DrJoe's avatar

Look Aleda. Justice Kagan several years ago expressed her opinion on this matter by stating that district judges, as well as federal judges, should not be allowed to impede the executive branch. The fact that she has taken on a hypocritical position now means nothing. We have complete entropy here and we have to preserve immigration because we need people to enter our country legally. We can use the help, but we cannot allow an influx of millions of illegal people to bring our court system to a grinding halt.

Expand full comment
Aleda's avatar

You say "...the current 20 million illegal immigrants depending on which number you choose are not citizens and are not entitled to any constitutional protection." But your statement reveals exactly why due process is a constitutional requirement. When a person is not allowed access to due process in a court of law how are they supposed to prove their legal status or disprove the authorities' characterization of them? This is why all persons in the US, regardless of citizenship or legal status, have the right to due process under the law, and why they must have adequate representation and actual access to our courts.

Expand full comment
DrJoe's avatar

I rest my case. If you find something wrong or something, I missed elucidate what you mean.

Expand full comment
Mike Brock's avatar

Now you're not making any sense.

Expand full comment
sotoportego's avatar

You didn't make a case. You said some stuff. No rejoinder, no reasoned response, nothing.

And "I missed elucidate what you mean" isn't a sentence. Avoid obfuscation. Eschew prolixity. Please.

Expand full comment
Mike Brock's avatar

The thing is, Joe is the kind of person in search of opinions that confirm what he already believes to be true. And that's probably true of most people who agree with me, quite frankly. Achieving intellectual honestly involves overcoming this predilection. The desire to be liked and agreed with, over the desire to find truth.

Expand full comment
DrJoe's avatar

Wow! Another personal attack versus the fact filled debate and the psychological profiling to boot. I’m impressed.

Expand full comment
Mike Brock's avatar

I know. I out-do myself sometimes.

Expand full comment