Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ken Schramm's avatar

Many of the legal eagles worth tracking on the radar had been predicting that this type of a decision was due soon. Indeed, the justices are the ones with a job for life, but their recent rubber-stamping of Trump's agenda had made it apparent that they might be headed for irrelevance. The truth is, even if he is not removed from government, most of them are going to be around after he's dead, no matter what. They needed to re-assert their power, and reaffirm the separation of powers, and the opinion seems to address both of those things. Barrett's opinion touches explicitly on the duties and authority of both the judicial and the legislative branch (OK, yeah, sure, it pretty much had to, given the nature of the case, but she spelled it out really plainly for the Elementary-Schooler-in-Chief).

It should never be the case that the two words which best describe the President of the United States are "impudent" and "petulant," but here we are. He needs some time in the time out chair.

Mike Bugenski's avatar

No surprise, meanwhile, we have a "wag the dog " moment readying itself in the middle east. Parliamentary forms of government have a vote of no confidence. We have the 25th Amendment. I guess the Founding Fathers never thought we the people would elect a convicted felon/mental patient.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?