At some point, SCOTUS is going to have a case before them where they'll have to decide between Donald Trump and the Constitution, as much as the conservative justices in the bench don't want that.
At some point, SCOTUS is going to have a case before them where they'll have to decide between Donald Trump and the Constitution, as much as the conservative justices in the bench don't want that.
Considering their "official acts" immunity ruling, I'm not optimistic about how that will turn out when it happens.
They'll twist themselves into knots to create a standard that is inherently arbitrary so that republicans can violate the constitution but democrats cannot repeat the same action.
I have a hard time seeing Barrett, Roberts or Kavanaugh saying the Executive can just flat out ignore statute and impound funds. That turns us into a banana republic.
At some point, SCOTUS is going to have a case before them where they'll have to decide between Donald Trump and the Constitution, as much as the conservative justices in the bench don't want that.
Considering their "official acts" immunity ruling, I'm not optimistic about how that will turn out when it happens.
They'll twist themselves into knots to create a standard that is inherently arbitrary so that republicans can violate the constitution but democrats cannot repeat the same action.
Roberts is going to have to make a choice; surprisingly, Barrett may vote with the liberals
I have a hard time seeing Barrett, Roberts or Kavanaugh saying the Executive can just flat out ignore statute and impound funds. That turns us into a banana republic.
Don't put them above approving that if they get a cut. Maybe not Barrett, but the others.
I tend to agree but I want proof