I haven’t read the Enemy Aliens Act. And I am Canadian so I haven’t studied it in history as a young person. However, what jumps to mind is can a criminal gang, no matter how heinous, be pursued under this? Doesn’t it mean an alien of a country that we are opposed to? We aren’t at war with Venezuela or El Salvador. Their gangs are horrible but this might require a two page amendment to the act to be passed by Congress identifying criminal gangs from other countries to be enemy aliens.
2 - In December of last year, a former Venezuelan army officer alleged that Nicolas Maduro's regime has used Tren de Aragua to attack, terrorize, and neutralize political opposition. (https://archive.ph/Pzreg)
3 - Tren de Aragua has been documented as originating within Venezuela's prisons, formed with the tacit approval of the Venezuelan government. (https://archive.ph/INmur).
4 - While Tren de Aragua's "headquarters" inside Tocorón Prison had been presumably "dismantled" by the Maduro regime in 2023, there is significant doubt as to the extent to which government efforts diminished TdA's power and influence, and even some suggestion the government allowed TdA leaders to escape the prison prior to the operation. (https://archive.ph/LQbOu#selection-1395.0-1399.407)
5 - The connections between TdA and the Maduro regime coupled with TdA's growing influence here in the United States were asserted by President Trump as an "invasion or predatory incursion", which is one of the predicates within the Alien Enemies Act for its invocation. A declared state of war is not required. We should note that FDR invoked the AEA against German nationals after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, even though Germany had not (yet) declared war on the United States.
While President Trump's invocation of the AEA is undeniably controversial, the AEA itself is considered to be Constitutional, and President Trump's invocation meets all the necessary predicates for a legitimate invocation. Congress has the option of overruling the President but has not opted to do so.
Interesting. The government connection I did not know. It is Pt #1 if I were a defense attorney I would argue against. I would say this Act can’t be used in this connection. The government would argue back cartels are essentially paramilitary organisations set up to cause mayhem and destruction and harm with no redeeming social value.
Not sure who would win.
Congress should amend the Act instantly to include criminal cartels.
Interesting. Thanks for that. Congress must act immediately to amend it to make it clear Foreign gangs can be classed as Alien Enemies. If they do, potential problem closed.
Given the ruling in Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. ___ (2025), there's no legislative onus on Congress to act, except if Congress wishes to cancel President Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
The legitimacy of Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act has already been validated by the Supreme Court. That is a settled question, which is why the current legal challenges are all swirling around misconceptions of what constitutes "due process.".
The Democrats have already lost on the question of whether President Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of transnational gangs like TdA and MS13. President Trump has that authority, and the Court has ruled that President Trump has that authority.
An interesting but woefully unremarked subtext in all of this is that President Trump's Administration has been dotting its i's and crossing its t's in these matters.
Donald Trump had mentioned using the Alien Enemies Act while he was still on the campaign trail prior to the November election last year (https://archive.ph/9ya8N).
I do believe it is safe to say the Trump Administration has done its homework on the matter!
While the Black Hand was not formally directed by the Kingdom of Serbia, as an entity involving several army officers and government officials, the Black Hand did enjoy political clout in Serbia.
What is certain is that Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the assassination, and invaded over it.
Similarly, President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center by al Qaeda, another non-state entity that was on friendly terms with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
If activities of non-state actors can form a plausible casus belli for invading a foreign country, those same non-state actors can certainly fall within the scope of the AEA, particularly where there is evidence to support a measure of cooperation and/or collusion between the non-state actor and a formal government. The linkages between TdA and the Maduro regime in Venezuela mean without a doubt that the AEA can be used in exactly the way that Presiden Trump is using it.
The problem with reliance on the AEDPA is that it explicitly places alien removal under the auspices of a "removal court". (8 USC §1532, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1532).
The AEA is by its very nature "beyond judicial review", and the powers asserted under the AEA are wholly within the realm of the Executive Branch. We should note that the Court has by long-standing precedent acknowledged the AEA to be beyond judicial review (Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/160/ ).
The only judicial process which can alien enemies can claim when facing removal under AEA is that of habeas corpus. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court (Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. ___ (2025), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/604/24a931/ ).
What the Court got wrong in this most recent ruling is allowing an indefinite period of time for filing habeas petitions and then punting to a lower court the establishment of a definite period of time. The Court also erred in not clarifying that habeas under the AEA is necessarily limited to challenging whether or not a detainee meets the criteria of an alien enemy.
Habeas petitions under the AEDPA are given a time frame of up to 1 year, whereas AEA removals can be accomplished more or less immediately.
The AEDPA confirms that the broad policy of the US government is that alien enemies and foreign terrorists are to be removed from the territory of the United States. However, in the present circumstance and given the Trump Administration's interest in pursuing the most expeditious removal of alien enemies possible, the AEA is the legal authority which best fits the Trump Administration's priorities.
As the brilliant Justice Antonin Scalia once opined in a scathing dissent: " you live by the ipse dixit; you die by the ipse dixit." Ipse dixit is Latin for "because he said it".
The Supreme Court has, in this instance, hidden a rake somewhere along the path for itself to step on.
I hear you. I’m not liking the use of AEA on this, but generally I agree with the sentiment, “Once plaintiff is acknowledged as an alien enemy, there is no further judicial review under the AEA.”
Whether the AEA is the best legal mechanism for dealing with TdA and MS13 gang members is a legitimate question of policy.
I don’t know that I have a clear answer to that question myself.
My stance: I voted for Donald Trump in part because of his Agenda 47 promise to deal with the rampant illegal immigration that has been happening in this country, and that includes getting TdA and MS13 out of the country. This is his plan for delivering on that promise.
It is a legitimate use of established authority.
For now, I’m willing to give Trump the leeway to do the job however he sees fit. That is why he was elected, after all.
“Where the Court has a duty to bring clarity, it instead created more confusion” is a great opening, but should be discussed. It’s better to restrict the court to limited matters at hand than to allow broad decision making. Roe was a bad decision because they went WAY out of bounds and it was overturned basically shut that reason.
In the present case, the Court already ruled that deportees under the AEA are entitled habeas corpus as their due process.
What the Court ruled was that 24 hours was inadequate notice for filing habeas. However, the Court also ruled it lacked the competence to decide what was adequate notice--which is a complete contradiction of its key finding.
Moreover, the Court should have clarified that, because the AEA is largely beyond judicial review, the parameters of the habeas petition available to the plaintiffs is limited to challenging whether or not they fit Donald Trump's criteria for being counted an alien enemy. Once plaintiff is acknowledged as an alien enemy, there is no further judicial review under the AEA.
Neither of these points was articulated by the per curiam ruling, and that was a grave error on the part of the Court.
Aliens enemies act is lower priority relative to the Birthright Citizenship Executive Order.
Trust SCOTUS. Birthright citizenship executive order has to be shut down immediately. It’s unconstitutional. It’s also a power grab to reduce checks and balances to the president. It’s literally taking power away from the lower courts.
Democrats in Congress are rudderless. They fight every battle and are losing the “war”. The courts are filtering out the noise to address the important issues first.
That’s an actual “strategy”. That’s checks and balances.
Consider how much time they need to have to give a wise decision. Don’t expect them to rush all these cases, to make quick decisions, and to set terrible long-term precedents.
President Trump's Executive Order on birthright citizenship is the correct Constitutional position on the matter. That is obvious from a plain reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, the legislative history on the Fourteenth Amendment, and the pivotal Wong Kim Ark ruling from 1898.
Moreover, there are sufficient Supreme Court precedents to make plain what the Supreme Court should have ruled here. Alien Enemies Act cases get very limited judicial review, and the Court already ruled that the process which presumed alien enemies are due is habeas corpus. The scope of that due process is plainly limited to whether or not an individual meets the invoked criteria for being declared an alien enemy. Once that criteria is met, the matter passes permanently out of the courts' purview. Both the law AND binding precedent make that abundantly clear.
The Court felt that 24 hours was inadequate notice to file a habeas petition prior to deportation under the AEA. The Court hypocritically felt that it could not decide how much time was needed for adequate notice. That's a cowardly and contradictory position to take, and it is to the Court's eternal shame and humiliation that it is the Court's position here.
Even if the Court felt it lacked sufficient information to render a decision on how much notice would be adequate, it could easily have summoned the parties back for additional oral arguments on that point.
The Court is not "filtering out the noise." The Court is playing politics with the law. The text of its ruling as well as Kavanaugh's obsequious and erroneous concurrence makes that abundantly clear. The Court is in fact adding to that noise with the judicial word salad masquerading as an actual opinion.
I'm not asking the Court to rush anything. I am demanding the Court perform its Constitutional duty, which it plainly did not do here.
The Supreme Court has the constitutional right to punt. Our options from there are to amend the constitution or impeach the justices. I don’t see a strong argument for impeachment.
The political system are laws. This is all politics. It’s always has been. That’s how checks and balances work.
Anyways, shall I comment on birthright citizenship here or on the link?
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each."
Among the oldest binding Supreme Court precedents is that the Court does NOT have a "constitutional right to punt." The Court has a duty to say what the law is. When the Court refuses to say what the law is--which it demonstrably did in this instance--the Court has clearly failed in that duty.
As for a case for impeachment, rulings such as this judicial disgrace indisputably advance that case. Chief Justice Roberts commenting publicly on criticism of miscreant judges erroneously exceeding the mandate of the judiciary and presuming to declare what the law should be, as Boasberg and others have done, also adds to that case for impeachment.
The impeachment of lower court judges is made on the basis of their miscreant rulings which ignore both the Constitution and the law.
The ideal of the rule of law is that the courts do not rule based on considerations of politics, but rule, per Chief Justice John Marshall, by saying what the law is, irrespective of the parties political positions. When politics becomes a factor in judicial rulings, we no longer have the rule of law.
If the Supreme Court can interpret precedent differently and thus overturn cases, that is their right. They have a constitutional right to punt as part of how they interpret the constitution. So we the people can amend it with that language from that case.
Like I said, I don’t see a strong case for impeachment but I can accept whatever Congress does. I know what I want from my representation. I find it weak but that’s my opinion. You can ask them to go after it.
What is politics to you? We might be getting into political philosophy territory. SCOTUS is working under the Constitution. It is this constitution that makes up this political system. Thus, it is all politics: Checks and balances.
Politics does not mean political parties to me. It means government. Is that your definition of politics?
We return again to Marshall--the role of the court is to say what the law is.
Courts should not be interpreting cases according to their whimsy, and it is foolishness to suggest that they may do so (although it is plain from several of the miscreant rulings of late by TDS-afflicted judges that a considerable portion of the federal bench engages in exactly that inexcusable malfeasance).
The courts must at all times clearly and accurately state the totality of the law. To suggest that they may opt out of that duty is an erroneous understanding of the role of the courts. There is no "constitutional right to punt", it is clear that Supreme Court precedent rejects any notion of such a right, and it is an error of both fact and logic to keep stating that there is.
Politics, broadly apprehended, is the extended public discourse over what the law should be.
Once law is codified into statute that discourse ends, politics ends, and the court's role of stating the law as regards facts presented begins--what we apprehend as the rule of law. If we blur that distinction we erase the rule of law, and it is folly to do so.
There is politics and there is the rule of law. Politics is the province of legislatures and the electorates who vote them into office. The rule of law is the province of the courts.
We keep them separate and distinct at all times or we have not government, but tyranny. No thank you.
One political philosopher considers warfare to be politics with bloodshed. I disagree with that definition but I say that the system of checks and balances is politics. It is our political system.
Beyond disappointing. In my mind, the Supreme Court doesn’t get to punt. The whole point of having a final, Supreme Court is that here is where the buck stops, the dithering ends, the final interpretation is made - and it had better be made solidly within the intent of the Constitution! These justices should have to forfeit their pay.
Meanwhile, you, Peter, display your usual crystal-clear reasoning. Our country NEEDS your magnificent reasoning. How can your mind be better channeled into sorting out the intellectual dilemmas of our times? I pray that you come to the attention of the people who can make it happen!
Off topic, but another issue that would benefit from your clear reasoning: the James Comey “8647” gaffe. Do you see this as his Constitutional right to freely express his opinion, or as a tangible threat against the President?
I’m so glad you said this! I also did not see his poor choice in playing with sea shells as a real assassination threat, and I’m disturbed by the calls for hanging him high. That would only confirm the Left’s characterization of us as totalitarian Nazis.
Every time the Supreme Court has attempted to "resolve" what is ultimately a political question, the end result has been a stain on the Court's legacy.
I haven’t read the Enemy Aliens Act. And I am Canadian so I haven’t studied it in history as a young person. However, what jumps to mind is can a criminal gang, no matter how heinous, be pursued under this? Doesn’t it mean an alien of a country that we are opposed to? We aren’t at war with Venezuela or El Salvador. Their gangs are horrible but this might require a two page amendment to the act to be passed by Congress identifying criminal gangs from other countries to be enemy aliens.
Several points must be emphasized here:
1 - Tren de Aragua has been identified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. (https://www.state.gov/designation-of-international-cartels/) They are not merely a "criminal gang".
2 - In December of last year, a former Venezuelan army officer alleged that Nicolas Maduro's regime has used Tren de Aragua to attack, terrorize, and neutralize political opposition. (https://archive.ph/Pzreg)
3 - Tren de Aragua has been documented as originating within Venezuela's prisons, formed with the tacit approval of the Venezuelan government. (https://archive.ph/INmur).
4 - While Tren de Aragua's "headquarters" inside Tocorón Prison had been presumably "dismantled" by the Maduro regime in 2023, there is significant doubt as to the extent to which government efforts diminished TdA's power and influence, and even some suggestion the government allowed TdA leaders to escape the prison prior to the operation. (https://archive.ph/LQbOu#selection-1395.0-1399.407)
5 - The connections between TdA and the Maduro regime coupled with TdA's growing influence here in the United States were asserted by President Trump as an "invasion or predatory incursion", which is one of the predicates within the Alien Enemies Act for its invocation. A declared state of war is not required. We should note that FDR invoked the AEA against German nationals after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, even though Germany had not (yet) declared war on the United States.
While President Trump's invocation of the AEA is undeniably controversial, the AEA itself is considered to be Constitutional, and President Trump's invocation meets all the necessary predicates for a legitimate invocation. Congress has the option of overruling the President but has not opted to do so.
Interesting. The government connection I did not know. It is Pt #1 if I were a defense attorney I would argue against. I would say this Act can’t be used in this connection. The government would argue back cartels are essentially paramilitary organisations set up to cause mayhem and destruction and harm with no redeeming social value.
Not sure who would win.
Congress should amend the Act instantly to include criminal cartels.
Interesting. Thanks for that. Congress must act immediately to amend it to make it clear Foreign gangs can be classed as Alien Enemies. If they do, potential problem closed.
Given the ruling in Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. ___ (2025), there's no legislative onus on Congress to act, except if Congress wishes to cancel President Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
The legitimacy of Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act has already been validated by the Supreme Court. That is a settled question, which is why the current legal challenges are all swirling around misconceptions of what constitutes "due process.".
The Democrats have already lost on the question of whether President Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of transnational gangs like TdA and MS13. President Trump has that authority, and the Court has ruled that President Trump has that authority.
An interesting but woefully unremarked subtext in all of this is that President Trump's Administration has been dotting its i's and crossing its t's in these matters.
He had it planned well in advance, didn’t he?
Donald Trump had mentioned using the Alien Enemies Act while he was still on the campaign trail prior to the November election last year (https://archive.ph/9ya8N).
I do believe it is safe to say the Trump Administration has done its homework on the matter!
The foreign terrorist organization designation is a recognition of the rise in the modern era of "non-state" actors.
One such "non-state" entity, The Black Hand, carried out the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, precipitating WW1.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Black-Hand-secret-Serbian-society
While the Black Hand was not formally directed by the Kingdom of Serbia, as an entity involving several army officers and government officials, the Black Hand did enjoy political clout in Serbia.
What is certain is that Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the assassination, and invaded over it.
Similarly, President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center by al Qaeda, another non-state entity that was on friendly terms with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
If activities of non-state actors can form a plausible casus belli for invading a foreign country, those same non-state actors can certainly fall within the scope of the AEA, particularly where there is evidence to support a measure of cooperation and/or collusion between the non-state actor and a formal government. The linkages between TdA and the Maduro regime in Venezuela mean without a doubt that the AEA can be used in exactly the way that Presiden Trump is using it.
Just read about AEDPA and AEA. I think AEDPA is the Act to proceed under.
The problem with reliance on the AEDPA is that it explicitly places alien removal under the auspices of a "removal court". (8 USC §1532, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1532).
The AEA is by its very nature "beyond judicial review", and the powers asserted under the AEA are wholly within the realm of the Executive Branch. We should note that the Court has by long-standing precedent acknowledged the AEA to be beyond judicial review (Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/160/ ).
The only judicial process which can alien enemies can claim when facing removal under AEA is that of habeas corpus. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court (Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. ___ (2025), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/604/24a931/ ).
What the Court got wrong in this most recent ruling is allowing an indefinite period of time for filing habeas petitions and then punting to a lower court the establishment of a definite period of time. The Court also erred in not clarifying that habeas under the AEA is necessarily limited to challenging whether or not a detainee meets the criteria of an alien enemy.
Habeas petitions under the AEDPA are given a time frame of up to 1 year, whereas AEA removals can be accomplished more or less immediately.
The AEDPA confirms that the broad policy of the US government is that alien enemies and foreign terrorists are to be removed from the territory of the United States. However, in the present circumstance and given the Trump Administration's interest in pursuing the most expeditious removal of alien enemies possible, the AEA is the legal authority which best fits the Trump Administration's priorities.
As the brilliant Justice Antonin Scalia once opined in a scathing dissent: " you live by the ipse dixit; you die by the ipse dixit." Ipse dixit is Latin for "because he said it".
The Supreme Court has, in this instance, hidden a rake somewhere along the path for itself to step on.
Take the win. Due process in the form of a Habeas petition is all that’s required.
I hear you. I’m not liking the use of AEA on this, but generally I agree with the sentiment, “Once plaintiff is acknowledged as an alien enemy, there is no further judicial review under the AEA.”
Whether the AEA is the best legal mechanism for dealing with TdA and MS13 gang members is a legitimate question of policy.
I don’t know that I have a clear answer to that question myself.
My stance: I voted for Donald Trump in part because of his Agenda 47 promise to deal with the rampant illegal immigration that has been happening in this country, and that includes getting TdA and MS13 out of the country. This is his plan for delivering on that promise.
It is a legitimate use of established authority.
For now, I’m willing to give Trump the leeway to do the job however he sees fit. That is why he was elected, after all.
“Where the Court has a duty to bring clarity, it instead created more confusion” is a great opening, but should be discussed. It’s better to restrict the court to limited matters at hand than to allow broad decision making. Roe was a bad decision because they went WAY out of bounds and it was overturned basically shut that reason.
In the present case, the Court already ruled that deportees under the AEA are entitled habeas corpus as their due process.
What the Court ruled was that 24 hours was inadequate notice for filing habeas. However, the Court also ruled it lacked the competence to decide what was adequate notice--which is a complete contradiction of its key finding.
Moreover, the Court should have clarified that, because the AEA is largely beyond judicial review, the parameters of the habeas petition available to the plaintiffs is limited to challenging whether or not they fit Donald Trump's criteria for being counted an alien enemy. Once plaintiff is acknowledged as an alien enemy, there is no further judicial review under the AEA.
Neither of these points was articulated by the per curiam ruling, and that was a grave error on the part of the Court.
President Trump already had that win. That's the win from Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. ___ (2025)
This leaves open ended how much time deportees get to file habeas petitions. That's not a win, and it's also not competent jurisprudence by the Court.
Aliens enemies act is lower priority relative to the Birthright Citizenship Executive Order.
Trust SCOTUS. Birthright citizenship executive order has to be shut down immediately. It’s unconstitutional. It’s also a power grab to reduce checks and balances to the president. It’s literally taking power away from the lower courts.
Democrats in Congress are rudderless. They fight every battle and are losing the “war”. The courts are filtering out the noise to address the important issues first.
That’s an actual “strategy”. That’s checks and balances.
Consider how much time they need to have to give a wise decision. Don’t expect them to rush all these cases, to make quick decisions, and to set terrible long-term precedents.
You are in error on all counts.
President Trump's Executive Order on birthright citizenship is the correct Constitutional position on the matter. That is obvious from a plain reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, the legislative history on the Fourteenth Amendment, and the pivotal Wong Kim Ark ruling from 1898.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/taking-citizenship-seriously
Moreover, there are sufficient Supreme Court precedents to make plain what the Supreme Court should have ruled here. Alien Enemies Act cases get very limited judicial review, and the Court already ruled that the process which presumed alien enemies are due is habeas corpus. The scope of that due process is plainly limited to whether or not an individual meets the invoked criteria for being declared an alien enemy. Once that criteria is met, the matter passes permanently out of the courts' purview. Both the law AND binding precedent make that abundantly clear.
The Court felt that 24 hours was inadequate notice to file a habeas petition prior to deportation under the AEA. The Court hypocritically felt that it could not decide how much time was needed for adequate notice. That's a cowardly and contradictory position to take, and it is to the Court's eternal shame and humiliation that it is the Court's position here.
Even if the Court felt it lacked sufficient information to render a decision on how much notice would be adequate, it could easily have summoned the parties back for additional oral arguments on that point.
The Court is not "filtering out the noise." The Court is playing politics with the law. The text of its ruling as well as Kavanaugh's obsequious and erroneous concurrence makes that abundantly clear. The Court is in fact adding to that noise with the judicial word salad masquerading as an actual opinion.
I'm not asking the Court to rush anything. I am demanding the Court perform its Constitutional duty, which it plainly did not do here.
Okay, let’s keep this simple.
The Supreme Court has the constitutional right to punt. Our options from there are to amend the constitution or impeach the justices. I don’t see a strong argument for impeachment.
The political system are laws. This is all politics. It’s always has been. That’s how checks and balances work.
Anyways, shall I comment on birthright citizenship here or on the link?
I’ll go with going to that link.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/
Among the oldest binding Supreme Court precedents is that the Court does NOT have a "constitutional right to punt." The Court has a duty to say what the law is. When the Court refuses to say what the law is--which it demonstrably did in this instance--the Court has clearly failed in that duty.
As for a case for impeachment, rulings such as this judicial disgrace indisputably advance that case. Chief Justice Roberts commenting publicly on criticism of miscreant judges erroneously exceeding the mandate of the judiciary and presuming to declare what the law should be, as Boasberg and others have done, also adds to that case for impeachment.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/judges-on-trial
The impeachment of lower court judges is made on the basis of their miscreant rulings which ignore both the Constitution and the law.
The ideal of the rule of law is that the courts do not rule based on considerations of politics, but rule, per Chief Justice John Marshall, by saying what the law is, irrespective of the parties political positions. When politics becomes a factor in judicial rulings, we no longer have the rule of law.
That's a problem.
If the Supreme Court can interpret precedent differently and thus overturn cases, that is their right. They have a constitutional right to punt as part of how they interpret the constitution. So we the people can amend it with that language from that case.
Like I said, I don’t see a strong case for impeachment but I can accept whatever Congress does. I know what I want from my representation. I find it weak but that’s my opinion. You can ask them to go after it.
What is politics to you? We might be getting into political philosophy territory. SCOTUS is working under the Constitution. It is this constitution that makes up this political system. Thus, it is all politics: Checks and balances.
Politics does not mean political parties to me. It means government. Is that your definition of politics?
We return again to Marshall--the role of the court is to say what the law is.
Courts should not be interpreting cases according to their whimsy, and it is foolishness to suggest that they may do so (although it is plain from several of the miscreant rulings of late by TDS-afflicted judges that a considerable portion of the federal bench engages in exactly that inexcusable malfeasance).
The courts must at all times clearly and accurately state the totality of the law. To suggest that they may opt out of that duty is an erroneous understanding of the role of the courts. There is no "constitutional right to punt", it is clear that Supreme Court precedent rejects any notion of such a right, and it is an error of both fact and logic to keep stating that there is.
Politics, broadly apprehended, is the extended public discourse over what the law should be.
Once law is codified into statute that discourse ends, politics ends, and the court's role of stating the law as regards facts presented begins--what we apprehend as the rule of law. If we blur that distinction we erase the rule of law, and it is folly to do so.
There is politics and there is the rule of law. Politics is the province of legislatures and the electorates who vote them into office. The rule of law is the province of the courts.
We keep them separate and distinct at all times or we have not government, but tyranny. No thank you.
One political philosopher considers warfare to be politics with bloodshed. I disagree with that definition but I say that the system of checks and balances is politics. It is our political system.
Thank you for staying on this.
How can the highest court not decide....?
They should have to forfeit their pay!
Impeaching judges is looking more and more like a good idea.
Beyond disappointing. In my mind, the Supreme Court doesn’t get to punt. The whole point of having a final, Supreme Court is that here is where the buck stops, the dithering ends, the final interpretation is made - and it had better be made solidly within the intent of the Constitution! These justices should have to forfeit their pay.
Meanwhile, you, Peter, display your usual crystal-clear reasoning. Our country NEEDS your magnificent reasoning. How can your mind be better channeled into sorting out the intellectual dilemmas of our times? I pray that you come to the attention of the people who can make it happen!
Off topic, but another issue that would benefit from your clear reasoning: the James Comey “8647” gaffe. Do you see this as his Constitutional right to freely express his opinion, or as a tangible threat against the President?
James Comey is an idiot.
If there was any doubt about that before this, there can be none now. James Comey proved he is an idiot.
But let's not pretend that everybody's high dudgeon over this "threat" is anything but opportunistic performative crap.
"86" is slang for getting rid of someone. There's no question about that.
What "86" is not is a threat. Comey's stupid sea shell post could just as easily be read as a call for Trump's impeachment.
James Comey did not threaten the President and people are not helping any by encouraging the BS claims that he did.
I’m so glad you said this! I also did not see his poor choice in playing with sea shells as a real assassination threat, and I’m disturbed by the calls for hanging him high. That would only confirm the Left’s characterization of us as totalitarian Nazis.
Don’t get me wrong. There are ample reasons for having Comey tarred, feathered, and flogged. But this just merits supergluing a dunce cap to his head.
You are such a witty delight, Peter!
Every time the Supreme Court has attempted to "resolve" what is ultimately a political question, the end result has been a stain on the Court's legacy.
This time will be no different.
Peter, did the justices rule along party lines, liberal-appointees vs conservative-appointees? Or did they mumble along, with just the one dissenting?
With only Alito and Thomas dissenting, this abject failure of a ruling cuts across the "liberal vs conservative" divide.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett in particular are supposed to be better than this.