Here is a long take on the court injunction crisis, which is less crisis than an opportunity…
OK, stop panicking about all the stupid legal decisions from leftist judges that the left is getting from judge shopping in leftist jurisdictions.
Stop. Panicking.
First, no one should be surprised by any of this. The administration certainly isn’t. We always knew exactly what they would do. Do not take the fact they are not screaming and yelling as them rolling over. They are not rolling over. There’s plenty going on behind the scenes as administration lawyers prepare their papers for the legal fight to come.
Second, since we have to have this fight, this is the time and the battleground to have it. Why? We want it settled right at the beginning of the administration so that we don’t have to deal with this down the road. And we want to fight on these orders because 1) they are manifestly the result of bad faith judge shopping and the opinions themselves are both procedural and 2) they are substantively ridiculous. They are legal jokes. Don’t listen to the dummy lawyers on Twitter - only listen to me or the people I tell you that you can rely on. Everyone telling you these are reasoned, valid legal decisions is either a legal illiterate or thinks you are stupid.
Third, the way this fight is happening is to our advantage. Wait, you ask, we’re getting decision after decision against us! How can that be good? Because they are leaving the Supreme Court no choice. People want Trump to sound off about this, but he doesn’t need to. What’s left unstated is the fact that he can just not obey these manifestly improper orders. They say it’s a constitutional crisis now, but that becomes a real one when they push Trump too far. He’s not going to submit forever to micromanagement of the executive branch by activist District Court judges in blue cities across America. And Chief Justice Roberts knows it.
CJ Roberts and majority of the court know these are ridiculous legally, and the last thing they want to do is stake the credibility of the Court – which famously has no divisions – on this kind of nonsense. They are not going to jump on the grenade that is these decisions. There might someday be a fight with a president about something where he is legally in the wrong, but this is not that time. This is not the hill the Supreme Court will die on. Wisely, Trump’s not adding fuel to the fire by threatening to do what it’s very clear he can do, which is disobey. This provides SCOTUS the cover it needs to deal with these upstart district courts without looking like Trump strong-armed it.
So relax and let the process go forward. We’re going to win on all these injunctions, and I expect fairly quickly
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The base has legitimate and non-negotiable expectations from @GOPChairwoman Ronna McDaniel beyond simply listening to what we in the base want regarding he run for reelection to RNC Chair...
Understand, this is not an accusation but an expression of the base's position. 1/
This process must be transparent. We expect @GOPChairwoman to publicly state every promise she has made to one of the 168 GOP electors to obtain or keep their vote for the Chair...
This will eliminate any suspicion or accusations of "buying" votes. 2/
We expect @GOPChairwoman will NOT use OUR money or RNC resources (like the communications shop) to directly or indirectly influence the vote for the Chair...
This eliminates any taint on the election as rigged by the establishment. 3/
Once Trump is served, he takes a few weeks to respond. He probably cannot remove the case since there are NY defendants, so no diversity. Now we're in mid-October. He moves to dismiss.
2/
I have only skimmed this dog's breakfast of a complaint, but what popped out at me for the parts I looked are were the lack of damages allegations, much less ones against NY, the plaintiff. You cannot sue if you did not suffer a loss. None are pleaded in the parts I looked at.
3/
What the left is saying when they compare the minor fracas of January 6 2021 with Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is that America should declare war on you, the patriots.
/1
Pearl Harbor was an active war and followed by a war that defeated our enemy.
9/11 was an active war which our current ruling class botched.
/2
They want the minor fracas of January 6, 2021 to be an excuse to imprison or kill you for dissenting from their garbage ideology. What else could it mean? I if you compare it to two other causes of wars, how can you claim it does not justify a third war? The message is clear.
/3
Why to TV writers think we adore loud, stupid, emotion-driven female characters?
Exhibit A - that chick with bad hair in Ozark. I hated her. The plot was largely her getting mad, doing something, and causing chaos.
And we were supposed to think “Whoa, tuff girl getting it done sister!” No. Every time the character came on screen I went for my phone to check Twitter. And that grating voice…
You are getting at the correct premise, but we need to take it all the way.
Disney is not losing its (special) privilege because its CEO rolled over to the weirdos of the left in and out of the company and decried the anti-pervert bill. That might be a pure 1A issue. 1/
Disney is using both cultural and political power to impose a horrific agenda of bizarre gender madness and other leftist poison on us normal people. It is not just saying "Disney thinks such and such." It is imposing its prog vision on us. We must fight back or become serfs. 2/
Normal people have diffused economic power, but Disney has concentrated economic power that translates into political power. Disney uses its political power w/o apology. Yet we are somehow barred from using our greatest strength, political power, to fight Disney's offensive? 3/
This trend is bad news for these future lawyers. It seems trite, but they will never learn to argue when throwing tantrums because of their feelz is tolerated. If we retain a legal system based on argument, they will be lousy lawyers.
I go up against lousy lawyers all the time. They think shrieking about our position will let them win. Usually it doesn't. But what if it usually worked? What if they got the world they wanted, where the winner wins not by argument but by other means?
2/
Their other means is pseudo-moral indignation and something close to violence. Many would not eschew real violence in theory. But do they imagine they would retain a monopoly on non-argumentative power assertion tools in that paradigm? Maybe for a while.
3/