,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Here’s my take on the implications of McConnell’s court packing (please bear with me as it will take a minute). Let’s start with the obvious - it’s bad. But perhaps not as bad as we might fear. Conservative presidents typically nominate conservative judges believing they know
2. how those judge will vote. Let’s take DC Federal District Court Judge John Bates as an example. He was appointed by George W. Bush in 2001. In 2008, Judge Bates decided a case involving a Congressional subpoena that had been served on Harriet Miers, Bush’s White House Counsel
3. Miers claimed that she did not have to testify before Congress because she had “absolute immunity.” Sound familiar? Judge Bates decided the issue and rejected the absolute immunity claim that was put forth by Miers and, by extension, the Bush administration. This is ...
4. but one example of the independence of the judiciary: a Bush-appointed judge deciding an issue squarely against the position of the president That appointed him. With a black robe & life tenure comes great independence. Now, I’m not suggesting that Federalist Society types
5. are going to abandon their ideologies (though they should, IMO, if they want to be honest, ethical jurists, deciding issues strictly on the facts and the law without resorting to one’s ideological leanings). What I am suggesting is that judges (or Supreme Court Justices)
6. will not always vote as we might expect them to vote. This is especially true when it comes the scope of presidential power or, what our country presently is experiencing, presidential crimes and corruption. Regardless of by whom they are appointed, judges are ...
7. not inclined to yield power or authority to the executive branch when the executive branch claims it does not have to submit to the authority of the courts. This is what happened in 1974 when Nixon argued he is not obligated to comply with a subpoena for his tapes and
8. Supreme Court, unanimously, said, in substance, “oh yes you are, Mr. President.” On one level, this was the Supreme Court telling the Executive Branch that it was called “Supreme” for a reason (after all, it ain’t called the “Supreme Executive Branch”).
9. I believe that even today’s Supreme Court will hold this criminal president accountable by deciding issues based on the merits of the legal claims rather than political loyalty, orthodoxy or ideology. Now here’s the BUT . . .
10. I do think the Federalist Society types will let their ideology creep into their decision on a woman’s right to chose and on Second Amendment issues. I know there are lots of counter arguments to my views and I welcome them. In the end, I do remain hopeful that,
11. when issues of presidential crime and corruption, as well as issues involving an abusive expansion of executive branch powers, reach the Supreme Court, #JusticeIsComing. And goodness know, we all need a little justice right about now.
