As we watch people splitting hairs, switching sides, charging hypocrisy, remember that this is what it's always really been about, no less now than in 2016: latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/…
I know messaging matters in politics, but it's not my job to prop up messaging that disintegrates should roles be reversed, like 2016's #WeNeedNine and 2020's #HonorHerFinalWords (or whatever the hashtag will become), even if they're reacting to opponents' first-strike bad faith.
These SCOTUS fights, like most all politics, are all about power, whether to be used for good or ill for our democracy. And I'd prefer our politicians to be honest about that. Indeed, it's a journalist's job to cut through the workshopped messaging and demand they be.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
No, these people are pushing clearly unconstitutional/illegal policies precisely because they hope this SCOTUS will be a willing partner in their reactionary revolution or will be powerless in the face of departmentalist defiance—and if the people resist then poof go elections
These people are seeking nothing short of an FDR-style constitutional revolution but without his political mandate to override the existing order—let alone return to the one FDR’s election repudiated.
FDR was reelected by even larger margins in 1936 AFTER the old guard SCOTUS struck down his first New Deal.
Do Trump’s people actually think he’ll get the same results via an internecine war with an otherwise simpatico SCOTUS? No. Bc they don’t think they answer to the people.
Dude's deliberately misreading a very short, digestible, and temporary judicial order so to lay the groundwork for going full Jackson Apocrypha in service to his movement's authoritarian agenda.
These people are all but actually up in arms over the judge's restraining "political appointees" from accessing Treasury's payment system, and lying to you that it includes the Secretary and other cabinet members, when it's clearly aimed at people like the DOGEbros.
Could the judge have been clearer? Sure. But this is still clear to any plain reader. Could the order have been narrower? Sure, another judge approved such a deal between private plaintiffs and the admin over DOGEbro access while litigation played out: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Trump’s DOJ was responding to this motion from WA/AZ/IL/OR seeking a temporary restraining order against the “Citizenship Stripping Order” storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
The decision feels like Bruen in that it'll have the justices in subsequent cases going WAIT NO WE DIDN'T MEAN THAT except it'll be after Emperor Trump orders Kavanaugh to chew off Roberts's face in the supersized Thunderdome constructed on top of the Supreme Court building
Hahahaha what am I saying this opinion will never be cited again if dude returns to office because they'll just Weekend at Bentham him so that he'll remain immune from whatever crimes he commits while alive or dead during his eternal reign
If dude loses then yeah so long as this SCOTUS is similarly constituted a majority will permit any subsequent Republican DOJ to swiftly execute any past Democratic President for the nonofficial criminal acts of Winning an Election and Democrating While In Office.