Another subject: If as Elon Musk asserts social security is a Ponzi scheme, then does the US Government owe millions of workers a refund of all their social security withholdings with interest?
Justice Allito's writings always seem to be attempts to justify his predetermined decisions, irrespective of precedent or law. His Roe v Wade decision reads like that. The one discussed here reads like his scrambling around to find some rationale to support the executive branch even though they are breaking the law. This administration is demonstrating how unwise the Court's presidential immunity decision was.
I'm very glad to hear Andrew Weissman's reference to Justice Robert Jackson's ruling on the Youngstown Steel Case. Learning that he was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial- and wrote about unchecked executive power- I'm not an attorney although this really sounded important to me.
I think anyone in the public who was following this issue understood that the government was usurping Congress's power of the purse. So how on earth do four Supreme Court justices, who presumably are a lot smarter than most of us and know more about how the constitution works, get this so wrong? Bizarre
It's not that they got it so wrong, except on a factual level where the Constitution is concerned. They know damned good and well what they are doing. These four justices, and really, ACB, though she took the opposite tack this time, are in the pocket of the Federalist Society which has a very specific mission, guided by Leonard Leo: Break the guardrails and go for broke in enabling GOP power. Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas are absolute elitists and put the mission completely above the law. Kavanaugh has joined their club but he's just a whiny, entitled frat boy and always will be. Roberts seems to have a conscience that only fires on two cylinders, so once in a while he makes the right decision.
Thank you for this. I have to say that I love Andrew Weissman. His humility combined with his intelligence as a lovely thing to listen to, and I totally appreciate you having him on the contrarian.
I took 2 things away from this discussion. The first is about the trust contractors might have in a government to pay them; a trust that this government is eroding on just about all fronts, Ukraine being the most odious. The second is "what happens to countries when you have an executive whose powers are unchecked" which referenced a speech given by a judge regarding the Nuremberg Trials.
I found this interview to be particularly significant in several ways. The importance of today's decision in itself. The reference to Justice Robert Jackson's famous concurrence in the Youngstown Steel Case. Yet another realization at a deeper level just how the current Supreme Court is damaging the rule of law that has defined our democracy until now. Thank you, Jen and Andrew.
We already know Thomas, Alito and Gorsuck are paid for. So now it comes down to Beer-Brett being added to that list. After all, some anonymous beneficent had already paid off his huge credit card debt, BEFORE he was even confirmed and then lied and whined his way through his confirmation hearing.
Thank you. The transcript helped me understand the points being made—I went back to it after the interview. I became more interested as the interview developed—second half was more big picture. I have a clue now about the questions the Supreme Court will face because of the presidential immunity decision. And how the various justices are allying themselves.
If Justice Alito and Justice Thomas are so committed to presidential immunity and power, will that not make the Supreme Court irrelevant? No SCOTUS rulings are necessary if we give the president the ability to do anything he wants.
Another subject: If as Elon Musk asserts social security is a Ponzi scheme, then does the US Government owe millions of workers a refund of all their social security withholdings with interest?
Well, that would be logical. And logic is not muskrat’s forte.
Justice Allito's writings always seem to be attempts to justify his predetermined decisions, irrespective of precedent or law. His Roe v Wade decision reads like that. The one discussed here reads like his scrambling around to find some rationale to support the executive branch even though they are breaking the law. This administration is demonstrating how unwise the Court's presidential immunity decision was.
Unwise hardly covers it. That decision is nothing less than an existential threat to our country.
I'm very glad to hear Andrew Weissman's reference to Justice Robert Jackson's ruling on the Youngstown Steel Case. Learning that he was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial- and wrote about unchecked executive power- I'm not an attorney although this really sounded important to me.
I think anyone in the public who was following this issue understood that the government was usurping Congress's power of the purse. So how on earth do four Supreme Court justices, who presumably are a lot smarter than most of us and know more about how the constitution works, get this so wrong? Bizarre
It's not that they got it so wrong, except on a factual level where the Constitution is concerned. They know damned good and well what they are doing. These four justices, and really, ACB, though she took the opposite tack this time, are in the pocket of the Federalist Society which has a very specific mission, guided by Leonard Leo: Break the guardrails and go for broke in enabling GOP power. Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas are absolute elitists and put the mission completely above the law. Kavanaugh has joined their club but he's just a whiny, entitled frat boy and always will be. Roberts seems to have a conscience that only fires on two cylinders, so once in a while he makes the right decision.
Not paying contracted work is how Trump got money…that he didn’t get from his father
But he is get his narcisssm from mistreatment by his Sociopathic father,
Thank you for this. I have to say that I love Andrew Weissman. His humility combined with his intelligence as a lovely thing to listen to, and I totally appreciate you having him on the contrarian.
I took 2 things away from this discussion. The first is about the trust contractors might have in a government to pay them; a trust that this government is eroding on just about all fronts, Ukraine being the most odious. The second is "what happens to countries when you have an executive whose powers are unchecked" which referenced a speech given by a judge regarding the Nuremberg Trials.
I found this interview to be particularly significant in several ways. The importance of today's decision in itself. The reference to Justice Robert Jackson's famous concurrence in the Youngstown Steel Case. Yet another realization at a deeper level just how the current Supreme Court is damaging the rule of law that has defined our democracy until now. Thank you, Jen and Andrew.
We already know Thomas, Alito and Gorsuck are paid for. So now it comes down to Beer-Brett being added to that list. After all, some anonymous beneficent had already paid off his huge credit card debt, BEFORE he was even confirmed and then lied and whined his way through his confirmation hearing.
What about non-compliance? If he doesn’t comply with the court can he go to jail?
I was hoping for an explanation of what happens now, after the SCOTUS decision
So SCROTUS finally did their job. Now to see if trump's administration complies.
Thank you. The transcript helped me understand the points being made—I went back to it after the interview. I became more interested as the interview developed—second half was more big picture. I have a clue now about the questions the Supreme Court will face because of the presidential immunity decision. And how the various justices are allying themselves.
Very helpful explication. Thank you.
If Justice Alito and Justice Thomas are so committed to presidential immunity and power, will that not make the Supreme Court irrelevant? No SCOTUS rulings are necessary if we give the president the ability to do anything he wants.
I am happy that Justices Roberts and Coney Barrett chose to agree with the minority in a just ruling.