alexaronson.bsky.social
Co-founder & Executive Director, Court Accountability. Former U.S. Senate/Justice Department. Views my own.
https://courtaccountability.substack.com/
https://bsky.app/profile/courtacctability.bsky.social
164 posts
26,507 followers
2,557 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
every single dem should be holding daily press conferences calling direct attention to the dire real world impact of cuts standing next to fired people, vets, etc.
every single fucking day, brutally relentless repetition
comment in response to
post
And even if he did! Schumer’s talking about a mad king who led an insurrection to try to steal a presidency and faced no repercussions. Now it’s some insane stretch to think he might not bow down to dweeby little John Roberts?
comment in response to
post
If the “rule of law” means we all just accept what a corrupt and weaponized Supreme Court says it means, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers,” as Lincoln aptly put it.
comment in response to
post
If the “rule of law” means we all just accept what a corrupt and weaponized Supreme Court says it means, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers,” as Lincoln aptly put it.
comment in response to
post
Oh cool and uneditable typos too, love those!
comment in response to
post
Anyway, that was way too long, but I *think* we're mostly agreed, and my post could have been clearer. But have at me :) 7/x
comment in response to
post
Roberts's majority is nakedly corrupt, unprincipled, and illegitimate. Putting them on a pedestal as the unimpeachable "rule of law" when they swat down absurd MAGA overreach just accedes to their legitimacy when they do the nakedly corrupt and unprincipled things they were put there to do. 6/x
comment in response to
post
And the danger I'm most concerned about is what I think we're seeing in the prevailing liberal and media sentiment: so long as the Court's orders are followed = no constitutional crisis. 5/x
comment in response to
post
By which I mean I think this is effectively a plea to the Vances and the Voughts of the Trump world: "Dudes, for the most part, we've got you. Just chill and we'll all be fine." 4/x
comment in response to
post
But I do think there's a big "wink wink" element at play, much the same as the one he sent in his year-end report. Roberts knows he's got a lit powder keg on his hands (one he was happy to light, let's not forget, lest, god forbid, Democrats retain power). 3/x
comment in response to
post
What I do think: This was much less a defense of lower court judges than it was an effort to preserve his power and forestall escalating attacks on himself and his SCOTUS colleagues when they DO (as you I think rightly predict here) eventually strike down elements of Trump's agenda. 2/x
comment in response to
post
That's fair. My point was to the general proposition on which we seem to agree. I don't know if Steve was saying this was a "wink wink" message to the judges or about this specific to this case. If so, it wasn't the best vehicle for my QP. 1/x