Anonymous wrote:Yes. The courts have always been outcome-driven but they used to have to lay out an argument that, however dumb, could be applied in other cases or distinguished.

True, but even the “old way” was pretty grotesque from a legal perspective. I politically support the outcome of Obergefell, but it was an awful opinion.

Basically, SCOTUS had served as a moderate/progressive legislative body for several decades.

Now it’s acting as a conservative legislative body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all just so disappointing and deflating. Why the hell can’t the Court even give the American people the respect of telling us why and under what authority they are making these decisions?

I want to believe that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice m but it’s hard when we are in the midst of this backlash.

The Supreme Court wouldn't need to weigh in on all of these cases if the district courts stopped overreaching. Not all of the recent Supreme Court decisions were 6-3 (one recently was 8-1, and still others were 4-5 and even 3-6), so not all of them were split on conservative/liberal philosophical lines. The problem with lawfare and district court overreach is that the Supreme Court is setting precedent that strengthens the power of the President. This may not be what Democrats wanted as a result.

That's not what anyone wants who wants checks and balances and three branches of govt

Of course it isn't, but the lawsuits forced the issue. Instead of suing, Democrats should have negotiated.

I like how your trolling is subtle enough to fool just boomers.

Anonymous wrote:60% of DOJ Federal Programs Branch just resigned in disgust.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-department-lawyers-flee-droves-141635491.html

They all had TDS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all just so disappointing and deflating. Why the hell can’t the Court even give the American people the respect of telling us why and under what authority they are making these decisions?

I want to believe that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice m but it’s hard when we are in the midst of this backlash.

The Supreme Court wouldn't need to weigh in on all of these cases if the district courts stopped overreaching. Not all of the recent Supreme Court decisions were 6-3 (one recently was 8-1, and still others were 4-5 and even 3-6), so not all of them were split on conservative/liberal philosophical lines. The problem with lawfare and district court overreach is that the Supreme Court is setting precedent that strengthens the power of the President. This may not be what Democrats wanted as a result.

That's not what anyone wants who wants checks and balances and three branches of govt

Yes, it’s not just the Supreme Court though. I’ve long felt like the whole litigation system is broken. Judges don’t want to judge and just push everyone to settlement. They let horrible lawyers get away with all sorts of crap then eventually lose their temper and yell at everyone. Basically everyone settles and everyone knows it so there’s lot of plaintiffs lawyers that make a living off of extorting settlements by pointing out you’ll have to spend a million to defend.
The Supreme Court dismantling any veneer of rationality is just the cherry on top of a crap system.
People periodically ask me to do career day talks or mentor people and I’m like “you really don’t want me to speak from the heart…”

Anonymous wrote:It’s all just so disappointing and deflating. Why the hell can’t the Court even give the American people the respect of telling us why and under what authority they are making these decisions?

I want to believe that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice m but it’s hard when we are in the midst of this backlash.

The Supreme Court wouldn't need to weigh in on all of these cases if the district courts stopped overreaching. Not all of the recent Supreme Court decisions were 6-3 (one recently was 8-1, and still others were 4-5 and even 3-6), so not all of them were split on conservative/liberal philosophical lines. The problem with lawfare and district court overreach is that the Supreme Court is setting precedent that strengthens the power of the President. This may not be what Democrats wanted as a result.

60% of DOJ Federal Programs Branch just resigned in disgust.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-department-lawyers-flee-droves-141635491.html

Trump has finally made dishonesty honest.

No more liars pretending to be telling the truth.

It's refreshing in its way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The system was never perfect, but it worked on a certain level. The SCOTUS seems to be turning everything on its ear, and often through the shadow docket with no explanation or guidance.

I’m a former civil AUSA with a lot of appellate experience, and the direction to which the DOJ and the SCOTUS have pivoted are disorienting to me. It seems justice no longer matters if it doesn’t suit the politics of this administration and the six conservative members of the Court.

Former fed attorney here and I so agree. It all feels so made up now. I used to be in an agency OGC and worked closely with DOJ on cases and it felt like there was so much internal process and we took it all so seriously. Like we were building something that mattered, or the courts would really look at the agency preamble and record and the arguments in the briefs. Now it feels like it was all pretty pointless.

A lot of my appellate cases were immigration matters, and I'm truly shocked at the actions that ICE is taking and DOJ is defending. I sent so many garbage cases back to ICE and USCIS with essentially no question and the full backing of DOJ, and now I find myself actually concerned that this SCOTUS is going to mess with birthright citizenship! Not only are attorneys out there wiling to support this grim and blatant affront to the Constitution, but they are working for the agency that was once proud to say its job was about "justice" first and foremost? Who are these people? Why did I even bother trying to do the right thing?

I saw it described as "legal Calvinball" and it's extremely apt. There's no consistency or philosophy, just whatever political agenda they're going for. The opinions are so strained as to be a joke, like when they hand waved "case or controversy" to dismantle First Amendment protections.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The system was never perfect, but it worked on a certain level. The SCOTUS seems to be turning everything on its ear, and often through the shadow docket with no explanation or guidance.

I’m a former civil AUSA with a lot of appellate experience, and the direction to which the DOJ and the SCOTUS have pivoted are disorienting to me. It seems justice no longer matters if it doesn’t suit the politics of this administration and the six conservative members of the Court.

Former fed attorney here and I so agree. It all feels so made up now. I used to be in an agency OGC and worked closely with DOJ on cases and it felt like there was so much internal process and we took it all so seriously. Like we were building something that mattered, or the courts would really look at the agency preamble and record and the arguments in the briefs. Now it feels like it was all pretty pointless.

Yes. The system was never perfect, but it worked on a certain level. The SCOTUS seems to be turning everything on its ear, and often through the shadow docket with no explanation or guidance.

I’m a former civil AUSA with a lot of appellate experience, and the direction to which the DOJ and the SCOTUS have pivoted are disorienting to me. It seems justice no longer matters if it doesn’t suit the politics of this administration and the six conservative members of the Court.

Yes, watching the Supreme.Courtndismantle checks and balances and fundamental right and destroying any respect for precedent or canons of construction is unbelievably demoralizing. Because we understand just how much devastation they are creating. The injunctions case is particularly pernicious.

Yes. The courts have always been outcome-driven but they used to have to lay out an argument that, however dumb, could be applied in other cases or distinguished.

It’s all just so disappointing and deflating. Why the hell can’t the Court even give the American people the respect of telling us why and under what authority they are making these decisions?

I want to believe that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice m but it’s hard when we are in the midst of this backlash.