How does Roberts square his decision now with his repudiation of Korematsu, "The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority"? How is it so when you can't review acts?
Roberts doesn’t even square his disapproval of korematsu with his disapproval of korematsu.
Korematsu specifically disavowed the thing Roberts said was korematsu’s holding when he disavowed it.
him "disavowing it" in TvHI made me sick in my stomach anyway. Like, how fucking dare you say you're repudiating Korematsu in a case where you're holding the Muslim Ban legal. Fucking monstrous decision.
It wasn’t just substantively monstrous.
If i described Korematsu like that in a brief, the judge would be justified in imposing Rule 11 sanctions for misrepresenting a cited authority.
John Roberts is a perfect example of what I call the Ludwig Kaas principle — that a cynical ally of fascists is worse and more morally culpable than a true-believing fascist, because the true believer can snap out of it with a moral epiphany but the cynic is doing evil by his own lights.
The Trump decision is terrible and the GOP justices don't care about consistency. However, the way the Trump case is squared with the Court's other cases (limiting fed power), is Trump involves criminal liability, the others largely deal with injunctions to stop or carry out some action.
"He might illegally order the FBI to arrest someone, but he wouldn't order the Bureau of Prisons to illegally continue to hold someone" is a weird needle to try and thread.
Or that if "the president illegally arrests political opponents" is a thing that is happening, the judges who might rule it illegal will very plausibly be in the cell next door
These people are epistemically constrained from understanding what is happening. It’s why it’s good that they’re mostly being cared for in homes for the permanently incapable, where they are allowed to “write” and “teach” and everyone pretends they they’re important.
I’ll say again, the three classes in which i got anything close to a “bad” grade in law school were con law, admin law, and federal courts.
Those disciplines have been effectively dissolved in favor of Sam alito’s personal rule.
Can i apply for retroactive Latin honors
"If the executive branch gets out of hand it can always be reined in by the judiciary, you know, the same judiciary that gave it the license to get out of hand in the first place..."
This feels like the difference between pure science and engineering. Is your concept of democracy connected to the world we actually live in by the thinnest of threads, if at all? That’s pure science. Is it designed to withstand three times the threat it’s ever likely to bear? Thank an engineer.
