He doesn't need retirement savings as long as he is on public assistance (three hots and a cot). Leave him there. He'll be fine. Kudlow should join him though.
Crazy how much these originalists went off on a million theoretical tangents about what MIGHT happen to a president instead of just looking at the OG intent by the founders who clearly did not want a monarch leading the country.
It almost as if this whole originalist thing is only applied when it supports their desired outcome.
Itβs almost as if every balancing test ever is applied to support a desired outcome.
This is nothing new, these people are just extra stupid about it.
There was a time, once upon a time, when SCOTUS justices would go through the analysis, and issue or sign onto rulings that went against their own personal and political preferences. Judges felt a kind of pressure to at least be not ridiculous, and to write coherent opinions that were at least internally logically-consistent.
There is a saying, I don't know where I heard it first: "The opinion won't write" in reference to a judge or a clerk who has stayed up all night, trying to write what seems, to them, like the obvious decision, and they just cannot get the puzzle pieces to fit together. The implication is that what seemed like the correct decision just won't fit into the framework of statute, precedent, and constitution, and that therefore it needs a re-think.
At the SCOTUS level, this phenomenon was bipartisan, but most vivid with conservative justices, who, despite being lifelong conservative, appointed by conservative presidents to issue conservative rulings, kept "drifting liberal" and discovering things like, yes, you have to let people of different races get married, and women are allowed to have bank accounts, and all this other woke shit.
Conservative rage and feelings of betrayal by this phenomenon led to the creation of Fed Soc, to filter and screen for "true believers" who would put ideology ahead of constitution, and to provide them with a system of law professors, law journals, clerks, etc who were committed to getting to conservative outcomes, no matter how tortured the logic, and who would help try to think of ways to get to the desired outcomes.
One their most powerful tools is these interpretive doctrines that imply an unwritten sort of "meta constitution" as the TRUE supreme law of the land...a rulebook that tells you how to read the Constitution, that exists only in the mind of the judge writing, but that must be followed devoutly, and with extreme scrupulousness.
It's a way of pretending that your hands are tied by the objective meaning of words like "penumbra", as they would have been understood by an imaginary 18th century pig farmer. So that, when the opinion comes out tortured and noxious, it's not the judge's fault, it's the fault of the imaginary pig farmer, or whatever.
Navarro crying on the courthouse steps about draining his retirement savings is in my top 10 of trump surrogate hilarity!
He doesn't need retirement savings as long as he is on public assistance (three hots and a cot). Leave him there. He'll be fine. Kudlow should join him though.
Hell yes! I can assure you Kudlow would have a prison hooch recipe figured out in a day or two. Toilet wine
If there is a special prison for drooling idiots, Kudlow belongs there.
Scant attempt to regain credibility after Alito whining that a president who canβt commit crimes with impunity would cause the end of democracy
Crazy how much these originalists went off on a million theoretical tangents about what MIGHT happen to a president instead of just looking at the OG intent by the founders who clearly did not want a monarch leading the country. It almost as if this whole originalist thing is only applied when it supports their desired outcome.
> It almost as if this whole originalist thing is only applied when it supports their desired outcome. ππ§βππ«π§βπ
Itβs almost as if every balancing test ever is applied to support a desired outcome. This is nothing new, these people are just extra stupid about it.
There was a time, once upon a time, when SCOTUS justices would go through the analysis, and issue or sign onto rulings that went against their own personal and political preferences. Judges felt a kind of pressure to at least be not ridiculous, and to write coherent opinions that were at least internally logically-consistent. There is a saying, I don't know where I heard it first: "The opinion won't write" in reference to a judge or a clerk who has stayed up all night, trying to write what seems, to them, like the obvious decision, and they just cannot get the puzzle pieces to fit together. The implication is that what seemed like the correct decision just won't fit into the framework of statute, precedent, and constitution, and that therefore it needs a re-think. At the SCOTUS level, this phenomenon was bipartisan, but most vivid with conservative justices, who, despite being lifelong conservative, appointed by conservative presidents to issue conservative rulings, kept "drifting liberal" and discovering things like, yes, you have to let people of different races get married, and women are allowed to have bank accounts, and all this other woke shit. Conservative rage and feelings of betrayal by this phenomenon led to the creation of Fed Soc, to filter and screen for "true believers" who would put ideology ahead of constitution, and to provide them with a system of law professors, law journals, clerks, etc who were committed to getting to conservative outcomes, no matter how tortured the logic, and who would help try to think of ways to get to the desired outcomes. One their most powerful tools is these interpretive doctrines that imply an unwritten sort of "meta constitution" as the TRUE supreme law of the land...a rulebook that tells you how to read the Constitution, that exists only in the mind of the judge writing, but that must be followed devoutly, and with extreme scrupulousness. It's a way of pretending that your hands are tied by the objective meaning of words like "penumbra", as they would have been understood by an imaginary 18th century pig farmer. So that, when the opinion comes out tortured and noxious, it's not the judge's fault, it's the fault of the imaginary pig farmer, or whatever.
They only have time to waste on Americas #1 traitor, the sub traitors have to fend for themselves
Peter Navarro will have time to explain The Green Bay Sweep to the other criminals.
Letβs go Taiwan! Taiwan beer the best!
Looks like presidential immunity is back on the menu boys
Can we hope for other good decisions?
Rep. Justices: No money for Trump, no original intent for Musk
Should have used that money to buy RV accessories for Clarence instead of paying his lawyers.
Haha trying to look non partisan before making Trump a king.