It's not just that he thinks he can circumvent the Constitution. It's that he thinks the Supreme Court's conservative majority will carve him the path by which he can do so. And I fear he's right, even though, if stare decisis meant a damned thing, the court's ruling in 1980 in a very similar case would prevent this court from even granting cert.
It's not just that he thinks he can circumvent the Constitution. It's that he thinks the Supreme Court's conservative majority will carve him the path by which he can do so. And I fear he's right, even though, if stare decisis meant a damned thing, the court's ruling in 1980 in a very similar case would prevent this court from even granting cert.
Lex, perhaps I’m wasting my time with this, but I still don’t accept calling the far-right extremists, whether on the Court or elsewhere, “conservative.” If they were truly conservative they would honor precedent, and not make up nonsensical and illogical things like textualism to justify their political agenda. I think every time we use the word “conservative” to refer to them we confer upon them a legitimacy they do not deserve.
It's not just that he thinks he can circumvent the Constitution. It's that he thinks the Supreme Court's conservative majority will carve him the path by which he can do so. And I fear he's right, even though, if stare decisis meant a damned thing, the court's ruling in 1980 in a very similar case would prevent this court from even granting cert.
Lex, perhaps I’m wasting my time with this, but I still don’t accept calling the far-right extremists, whether on the Court or elsewhere, “conservative.” If they were truly conservative they would honor precedent, and not make up nonsensical and illogical things like textualism to justify their political agenda. I think every time we use the word “conservative” to refer to them we confer upon them a legitimacy they do not deserve.
Good point, Harry. Let's call them fascists.