BlooVooDoo
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,704
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I hate administrative stays in these cases. There's nothing to consider. It is plainly unconstitutional for the president to use the military to control the population with unchecked power. Every middle schooler knows that. It's not a close question, because of all the goals of the constitution, the most fundamental was no kings. No dictators. Checks and balances (which the Supreme Court seems to have forgotten somehow).
Loser.What does that mean? I saw an NBA player do this recently.
“… And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
… The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
… While ICE “was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have,” it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military’s help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added.
“The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ is untenable and dangerous,” the judge wrote.
… The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace….”
I would really like to read your take. Anything in particular make you think so?so seems like we have crossed the rubicon.
This was one of the reasons I retired from teaching. I felt I no longer could tell the truth and do my job. Kids aren't paying $40K a year in tuition or whatever it is now to hear the professors say, "eh, the law doesn't really matter any more."… “It’s a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn’t matter,” Chen said. “I don’t know that [Trump] particularly cares that he’s doing something illegal.”“
99.9999% of the law has nothing to do with Trump and there are millions of people trying to apply the law correctly every day in all sorts of ways.This was one of the reasons I retired from teaching. I felt I no longer could tell the truth and do my job. Kids aren't paying $40K a year in tuition or whatever it is now to hear the professors say, "eh, the law doesn't really matter any more."
This was one of the reasons I retired from teaching. I felt I no longer could tell the truth and do my job. Kids aren't paying $40K a year in tuition or whatever it is now to hear the professors say, "eh, the law doesn't really matter any more."
Don't try to lecture me about my own experience, especially when you don't know what you are talking about. How many law school courses have you taught?99.9999% of the law has nothing to do with Trump and there are millions of people trying to apply the law correctly every day in all sorts of ways.
Your particular specialties understandably color your view. The "law" is a lot more than bad Supreme Court decisions.Don't try to lecture me about my own experience, especially when you don't know what you are talking about. How many law school courses have you taught?
Imagine yourself trying to teach Con Law or Admin Law in an age of Bruen and Trump v. United States and Shelby County and the multitude of catastrophes last year. How? How do you teach 1L law students that the law matters when it clearly does not to the US Supreme Court. It's not Trump per se that is the problem; it's the lawlessness of the Supreme Court. And if you think the problem with the Supreme Court is that they are deciding cases based on emotions, then you have less understanding of the world than I had thought.
And don't get me started on corporate law. That's not exactly Trump related, but the quality of Delaware corporate law has eroded substantially in recent years. It has certainly become a lot less fun to teach or think about. That's largely because Delaware is racing to the bottom along with Texas.
Fine. Law matters, except apparently not in the most important cases. I don't want to teach that either. You've got to remember: law students are pretty fucking far from practicing lawyers. Supreme Court opinions form the vast majority of reading materials in federal law courses until perhaps 3L year.Your particular specialties understandably color your view. The "law" is a lot more than bad Supreme Court decisions.