1. I've seen a great many things and met a great many people by driving - to Alaska, across the country, all over the Scottish Highlands, etc. I've also moved to two places just by looking at a map and taking a drive there. I like the nomadism about these behaviors and don't understand people who never explore by driving.
2. Jack Valenti was our commencement keynote at my uni graduation. He spoke with incredible grace about the JFK assassination. I have it on DVD and will digitize and share the speech if anyone would like. It was very special.
Totally agreed with Matt's due process rant at the end of the show, he is so right. The worst part of all this is that while he's totally right, this will be an intensely hard political fight, because all the juice is on the side of "what you support the terrorists and drug dealers and gang members?" It's hard enough to get people to stick with innocent until proven guilty, it's even harder to make the argument that we need to give everyone, even people who are likely guilty of the worst crimes, the due process rights that humans are entitled to.
After hearing that Advisory Opinions episode with the section about "Common Good Constitution", it seems like there's a whole movement afoot that believes "it's constitutional if I like it, and unconstitutional if I don't."
Is there an episode that Moynihan gives his policy prescription for Ukraine? I do get how he doesn’t want the invading party to make out well during any negotiation. But I’m wondering: what else is realistic?
At 22:41 when Matt began speaking about the Serpent Mound, I was disappointed to not hear either 1) more doubt expressed by Kmele in lieu of the 'No step on snek' scandal and/or 2) not to have either host troll Matt, asking if visitors can step on it.
This isn’t from a pro-Trump prospective but I don’t think he’s completely wrong about activist courts. Even in the case of and sometimes especially in the case of novel legal theory (because in the case of a novel legal theory there would be less precedent putting the executive on notice)” if the power arguably exists then injunctions should be usually inappropriate. Courts exist as a vehicle for review, which is a lengthy process, courts are not proactive arbiters to grant permission but guardrails that carefully examine what has taken place and determine if that was a valid use of power. What the courts are doing with this presidency in my opinion is taking on power they haven’t historically had from both the legislature and the executive.
The idea that you can’t send the plane unless we give you permission does not sit well with me, any normal presidency the pushback on the action would be from the public and maybe the legislature whipping up a law to tell the executive that he can’t deport non-citizens to El Salvador etc. It strikes me as very odd for a judge to say “no turn that plane around” without building a full record with briefings and arguments. That’s an extremely and unusually proactive approach for a judge to take. I fundamentally don’t think courts are permission granters.
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that an injunction or restraining order are justified when there’s a good chance that waiting for a lengthy review will lead to irreparable harm.
Sorry this is a bit of a long response but; There’s a balancing test and part of that test also should review the public policy outcomes - even if the deportation one passes the muster, which there is definitely an argument about the role of the courts, normally it would take a year or more and a full hearing for a court to say no that’s illegal for the president to do - this has historically been how courts treat the executive branch - i guarantee there’s been so many cases where similar logic could applied but the courts showed restraint and applied a full judicial hearing before ordering the executive to do something or declaring that an action is illegal so even in this specific case I’d still ask why out of the thousands of things in the past courts have done why now, why are we seeing District Court judges throw a flurry of injunctions defying historical balances of power. the numbers on how many injunction have been thrown at Trump vs other admins doesn’t look good for the judiciary so far so overall and I don’t think the activist judges criticism is unwarranted - if this is the new normal I think it’ll cause institutional harm to the judiciary because unelected low level judges will take a role of permission grantors to the executive branch which has never been the role of the judiciary.
Someone shared the numbers on injunctions per admin and it looks suspect for the judiciary that Trump is being treated very differently - I think scrutiny towards Trump is warranted but there’s cause here for scrutiny to how the courts are behaving as well
I admit that I haven’t kept up with the details of all the various rulings thus far, but my impression is that they’ve been less “This is definitely illegal, case closed” and more “Let’s hit pause or maintain the status quo while we sort this out”. Maybe this is a big departure from precedent, but to my non-expert ears the above doesn’t sound unreasonable at all. Especially when people are being spirited out of the country and into a super duper max prison from which they may never depart.
As for the number of injunctions compared to other administrations, maybe Trump is just engaging in a lot more questionable behavior than other presidents, and/or being a lot sloppier about it?
I get that but it’s about the fundamental role of courts, they don’t police executive action the review it. So many actions an executive can legally carry out will cause harm (ie any military action) which is why the standard should remain extremely high
If the president can order a drone strike or any number of DOJ related enforcement actions that will cause damage up to the taking of a life why would all of the sudden start issuing injunctions because a plane of illegal immigrants is being flown to El Salvador, they can still be released and brought back, drone strikes are pretty fatal. It’s easy to say oh that’s a pretty extreme deportation action, but stopping it really isn’t the role of courts, the role is to do a thorough examination and determine the legality, injunctions are a shortcut and a tool that needs to be extremely thoughtfully applied
You may know more about this than I do, but it just doesn’t seem to me like the court is doing anything that out of the ordinary. Don’t judges block executive action that is of questionable legality somewhat regularly? I think Biden’s student loan forgiveness program was stayed (and ultimately struck down). Anecdotally, I feel like there have been many other examples throughout my life.
If judges are blocking Trump administration actions for no good reason when they are clearly within the executive’s statutory and Constitutional authority, then I agree that’s an overreach. The whole point is that the legality of the recent actions is very dubious.
If that’s not a good reason for a court to temporarily block the action, what is? That’s not a rhetorical question - I’m interested in your answer.
I do think that there are some questions about whether or not district court judges have the jurisdiction/authority to issue temporary restraining orders nationwide on broad issues rather than some narrow and specific TRO based on the case in front of them. But as Justice Roberts said recently, the way to deal with that is to appeal it to the SC and get a ruling, not to just shrug and say "nah"
I grew up in the St Louis area and still frequent there to visit my family. Cahokia Mounds is a fantastic place to visit. I developed a lot of reverence for our indigenous population in my youth after that! With Putin, Kamala Harris proved that all you have to do is say something about Trump’s rallies and he’s off to the races. He’s just too easily manipulated and that’s why I think Trump is dangerous.
Ahhh The Cahokia Mounds; field trips there a rite of passage for STL area schoolchildren.
As an expat STL native who has just left again after spending the most time there since covid times, bummed I'm going to miss it!
Hopefully you get into town early enough to check out the CWE located Cathedral Basilica, home to one of the largest mosaic installations in the world! A stunningly beautiful church.
Turns out the real conspiracy is that Doge is cutting federal programs to free up funds for MOAR FIF CONTENT!!
If they took out DOE with the sole intent to fund Fif, I'd champion it!
Michael Moynihan and Anthony Weiner together in an interview? I don’t know if the world is ready yet for that much horniness in one room.
Next week, Matt Gaetz.
HAH!
Jesus Christ you guys! NOW who’s the ketamine addict?
1. I've seen a great many things and met a great many people by driving - to Alaska, across the country, all over the Scottish Highlands, etc. I've also moved to two places just by looking at a map and taking a drive there. I like the nomadism about these behaviors and don't understand people who never explore by driving.
2. Jack Valenti was our commencement keynote at my uni graduation. He spoke with incredible grace about the JFK assassination. I have it on DVD and will digitize and share the speech if anyone would like. It was very special.
Also, he headed up the Motion Picture Association of America. He was a true American.
Well shit, now I'm gonna hafta figure it out. And I will!
Is Matt literally driving across half of the country to go step on snek...???
Sound like Moynihan killed JFK
Totally agreed with Matt's due process rant at the end of the show, he is so right. The worst part of all this is that while he's totally right, this will be an intensely hard political fight, because all the juice is on the side of "what you support the terrorists and drug dealers and gang members?" It's hard enough to get people to stick with innocent until proven guilty, it's even harder to make the argument that we need to give everyone, even people who are likely guilty of the worst crimes, the due process rights that humans are entitled to.
After hearing that Advisory Opinions episode with the section about "Common Good Constitution", it seems like there's a whole movement afoot that believes "it's constitutional if I like it, and unconstitutional if I don't."
Is The Serpent Mound also referred to as The Snek Pile?
NO STEP ON SERPENT!
Is there an episode that Moynihan gives his policy prescription for Ukraine? I do get how he doesn’t want the invading party to make out well during any negotiation. But I’m wondering: what else is realistic?
Completely agree. This has least worse written all over it.
At 22:41 when Matt began speaking about the Serpent Mound, I was disappointed to not hear either 1) more doubt expressed by Kmele in lieu of the 'No step on snek' scandal and/or 2) not to have either host troll Matt, asking if visitors can step on it.
Gotta leave some softballs for the Chat!
I feel seen
This isn’t from a pro-Trump prospective but I don’t think he’s completely wrong about activist courts. Even in the case of and sometimes especially in the case of novel legal theory (because in the case of a novel legal theory there would be less precedent putting the executive on notice)” if the power arguably exists then injunctions should be usually inappropriate. Courts exist as a vehicle for review, which is a lengthy process, courts are not proactive arbiters to grant permission but guardrails that carefully examine what has taken place and determine if that was a valid use of power. What the courts are doing with this presidency in my opinion is taking on power they haven’t historically had from both the legislature and the executive.
The idea that you can’t send the plane unless we give you permission does not sit well with me, any normal presidency the pushback on the action would be from the public and maybe the legislature whipping up a law to tell the executive that he can’t deport non-citizens to El Salvador etc. It strikes me as very odd for a judge to say “no turn that plane around” without building a full record with briefings and arguments. That’s an extremely and unusually proactive approach for a judge to take. I fundamentally don’t think courts are permission granters.
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that an injunction or restraining order are justified when there’s a good chance that waiting for a lengthy review will lead to irreparable harm.
Sorry this is a bit of a long response but; There’s a balancing test and part of that test also should review the public policy outcomes - even if the deportation one passes the muster, which there is definitely an argument about the role of the courts, normally it would take a year or more and a full hearing for a court to say no that’s illegal for the president to do - this has historically been how courts treat the executive branch - i guarantee there’s been so many cases where similar logic could applied but the courts showed restraint and applied a full judicial hearing before ordering the executive to do something or declaring that an action is illegal so even in this specific case I’d still ask why out of the thousands of things in the past courts have done why now, why are we seeing District Court judges throw a flurry of injunctions defying historical balances of power. the numbers on how many injunction have been thrown at Trump vs other admins doesn’t look good for the judiciary so far so overall and I don’t think the activist judges criticism is unwarranted - if this is the new normal I think it’ll cause institutional harm to the judiciary because unelected low level judges will take a role of permission grantors to the executive branch which has never been the role of the judiciary.
Someone shared the numbers on injunctions per admin and it looks suspect for the judiciary that Trump is being treated very differently - I think scrutiny towards Trump is warranted but there’s cause here for scrutiny to how the courts are behaving as well
I admit that I haven’t kept up with the details of all the various rulings thus far, but my impression is that they’ve been less “This is definitely illegal, case closed” and more “Let’s hit pause or maintain the status quo while we sort this out”. Maybe this is a big departure from precedent, but to my non-expert ears the above doesn’t sound unreasonable at all. Especially when people are being spirited out of the country and into a super duper max prison from which they may never depart.
As for the number of injunctions compared to other administrations, maybe Trump is just engaging in a lot more questionable behavior than other presidents, and/or being a lot sloppier about it?
I get that but it’s about the fundamental role of courts, they don’t police executive action the review it. So many actions an executive can legally carry out will cause harm (ie any military action) which is why the standard should remain extremely high
If the president can order a drone strike or any number of DOJ related enforcement actions that will cause damage up to the taking of a life why would all of the sudden start issuing injunctions because a plane of illegal immigrants is being flown to El Salvador, they can still be released and brought back, drone strikes are pretty fatal. It’s easy to say oh that’s a pretty extreme deportation action, but stopping it really isn’t the role of courts, the role is to do a thorough examination and determine the legality, injunctions are a shortcut and a tool that needs to be extremely thoughtfully applied
You may know more about this than I do, but it just doesn’t seem to me like the court is doing anything that out of the ordinary. Don’t judges block executive action that is of questionable legality somewhat regularly? I think Biden’s student loan forgiveness program was stayed (and ultimately struck down). Anecdotally, I feel like there have been many other examples throughout my life.
If judges are blocking Trump administration actions for no good reason when they are clearly within the executive’s statutory and Constitutional authority, then I agree that’s an overreach. The whole point is that the legality of the recent actions is very dubious.
If that’s not a good reason for a court to temporarily block the action, what is? That’s not a rhetorical question - I’m interested in your answer.
I do think that there are some questions about whether or not district court judges have the jurisdiction/authority to issue temporary restraining orders nationwide on broad issues rather than some narrow and specific TRO based on the case in front of them. But as Justice Roberts said recently, the way to deal with that is to appeal it to the SC and get a ruling, not to just shrug and say "nah"
I grew up in the St Louis area and still frequent there to visit my family. Cahokia Mounds is a fantastic place to visit. I developed a lot of reverence for our indigenous population in my youth after that! With Putin, Kamala Harris proved that all you have to do is say something about Trump’s rallies and he’s off to the races. He’s just too easily manipulated and that’s why I think Trump is dangerous.
Ahhh The Cahokia Mounds; field trips there a rite of passage for STL area schoolchildren.
As an expat STL native who has just left again after spending the most time there since covid times, bummed I'm going to miss it!
Hopefully you get into town early enough to check out the CWE located Cathedral Basilica, home to one of the largest mosaic installations in the world! A stunningly beautiful church.
But I'm not even finished with the last one!
(Just kidding, I was)