"The Court should have put an end to this madness months ago, before S. B. 8 first went into effect. It failed to do so then, and it fails again today. I concur in the Court’s judgment that the petitioners’ suit may proceed against certain executive licensing officials who retain enforcement authority under Texas law, and I trust the District Court will act expeditiously to enter much-needed relief. I dissent, however, from the Court’s dangerous departure from its precedents, which establish that federal courts can and should issue relief when a State enacts a law that chills the exercise of a constitutional right and aims to evade judicial review. By foreclosing suit against state-court officials and the state attorney general, the Court effectively invites other States to refine S. B. 8’s model for nullifying federal rights. The Court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government."
Advisory Opinions has had good coverage on this. A big part of the problem was apparently that plaintiffs couldn't figure out who to sue under the law since the state was not in charge of enforcement. The novelty of the law has helped it last, but I think its days are numbered and the trick won't work again once there is precedent on how to deal with it.
Wow, this news about Meadows is absolutely wild. Trump and his buddies really wanted to overthrow the constitution. And the reason they have got so far is the outrage that fills conservative Americans. It seems like nothing is too crazy in American politics at present.
If the Republicans get back into power in the next few years, what will their base demand from them in 2024? Mob rule, summary jailings, witch hunts and executions? Very scary.
Not only that, they're currently pushing back on limits on executive power:
"The legislation would require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns, which Mr. Trump refused to do."
"The act would also strengthen the Constitution’s previously obscure ban on presidents taking emoluments, or payments, by extending anticorruption prohibition to commercial transactions. Mr. Trump’s refusal to divest from his hotels raised the question of whether lobbyists and other governments that began paying for numerous rooms at Trump resorts — and sometimes not using them — were trying to purchase his favor."
"The bill would also require campaigns to report any offers of foreign assistance to the F.B.I. — a proposal that resonates with episodes unearthed in the Russia investigation, such as when Donald Trump Jr. and other senior campaign officials met at Trump Tower with Russians they were told had dirt on Hillary Clinton."
"The package now moves to the Senate, where the 60-vote threshold for passing legislation means that Republicans can block it. Representative James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who managed his party’s side of the House debate, said there was 'no apparent path for the bill in the Senate.'"[1]
By adopting the misguided notion that EVERYTHING IS ABOUT TRUMP, the GOP in the legislature are overlooking to what extent executive power has grown at their expense, and seem to be more than willing to keep handing over more, since doing their actual jobs (legislating) is harder than playing Internet Trolls and arguing with Sesame Street.
I miss GOP public officials who actually cared about the responsibility their voters elected them to fulfill, instead of the world's ugliest beauty pageant performing for a sole handsy judge at Mar-a-Lago.
We do not know who prepared the Power Point presentation. Do we know who it was presented to? The link to Forbes did not work for me. It may have come from an Adam Schiff screen play outline.
I think it got my point across rather well. To answer your super serious question though, its an ongoing investigation so I'm pretty sure you won't know who sent them until the commission is complete or charges are brought against whichever law maker pitched this attempted coup.
Sotomayor is on fire in her dissent:
"The Court should have put an end to this madness months ago, before S. B. 8 first went into effect. It failed to do so then, and it fails again today. I concur in the Court’s judgment that the petitioners’ suit may proceed against certain executive licensing officials who retain enforcement authority under Texas law, and I trust the District Court will act expeditiously to enter much-needed relief. I dissent, however, from the Court’s dangerous departure from its precedents, which establish that federal courts can and should issue relief when a State enacts a law that chills the exercise of a constitutional right and aims to evade judicial review. By foreclosing suit against state-court officials and the state attorney general, the Court effectively invites other States to refine S. B. 8’s model for nullifying federal rights. The Court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government."
Advisory Opinions has had good coverage on this. A big part of the problem was apparently that plaintiffs couldn't figure out who to sue under the law since the state was not in charge of enforcement. The novelty of the law has helped it last, but I think its days are numbered and the trick won't work again once there is precedent on how to deal with it.
Wow, this news about Meadows is absolutely wild. Trump and his buddies really wanted to overthrow the constitution. And the reason they have got so far is the outrage that fills conservative Americans. It seems like nothing is too crazy in American politics at present.
If the Republicans get back into power in the next few years, what will their base demand from them in 2024? Mob rule, summary jailings, witch hunts and executions? Very scary.
Not only that, they're currently pushing back on limits on executive power:
"The legislation would require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns, which Mr. Trump refused to do."
"The act would also strengthen the Constitution’s previously obscure ban on presidents taking emoluments, or payments, by extending anticorruption prohibition to commercial transactions. Mr. Trump’s refusal to divest from his hotels raised the question of whether lobbyists and other governments that began paying for numerous rooms at Trump resorts — and sometimes not using them — were trying to purchase his favor."
"The bill would also require campaigns to report any offers of foreign assistance to the F.B.I. — a proposal that resonates with episodes unearthed in the Russia investigation, such as when Donald Trump Jr. and other senior campaign officials met at Trump Tower with Russians they were told had dirt on Hillary Clinton."
"The package now moves to the Senate, where the 60-vote threshold for passing legislation means that Republicans can block it. Representative James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who managed his party’s side of the House debate, said there was 'no apparent path for the bill in the Senate.'"[1]
By adopting the misguided notion that EVERYTHING IS ABOUT TRUMP, the GOP in the legislature are overlooking to what extent executive power has grown at their expense, and seem to be more than willing to keep handing over more, since doing their actual jobs (legislating) is harder than playing Internet Trolls and arguing with Sesame Street.
I miss GOP public officials who actually cared about the responsibility their voters elected them to fulfill, instead of the world's ugliest beauty pageant performing for a sole handsy judge at Mar-a-Lago.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/us/politics/presidential-power-trump.html
Wonder if it will cover sale of abstract art?
Seems like a reasonable thing for the GOP to ask for in exchange for their support of the bill.
We do not know who prepared the Power Point presentation. Do we know who it was presented to? The link to Forbes did not work for me. It may have come from an Adam Schiff screen play outline.
Be careful you keep putting your fingers deeper in your ears they are eventually going to touch.
(I'm stealing this.)
Smart ass remark means nothing. If you know who prepared the presentation and who it was presented to, tell me. It's a real question.
I think it got my point across rather well. To answer your super serious question though, its an ongoing investigation so I'm pretty sure you won't know who sent them until the commission is complete or charges are brought against whichever law maker pitched this attempted coup.