With a trio of examples already this week, some insights into the other end of the spectrum from DOJ's higher-profile practice of rushing to the Supreme Court.
I was wondering whether these nonstop stays that allow Trump to keep doing what he wants was a way to delay the ultimate reckoning—forestall resistance. Who knows?
I believe the DOJ and the 6 Federalist Society supported Republican SC justices are in lock-step: the goal is to issue Shadow Docket decisions as quickly as possible while slow walking final decisions in an effort to implement Project 2025's goals before Trump's term ends. It is intentional and malevolent, all in furtherance of the primary Project 2025 goals prefaced by Kevin D. Roberts, PhD, President, Heritage Foundation, "A Promise to America':
1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect
our children.
2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the
American people.
3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution
Thank you for this focus. A lot has been written about the SCOTUS shadow-docket strategy of reshaping law without taking judicial responsibility for justifying the changes, but less attention has been given to the seeming concomitant -- that eventually SCOTUS must face accountability by ruling on and addressing the substantive merits of the underlying issues. Or . . . maybe not. Perhaps DOJ calculates, correctly, that the administration does better by shielding its puppet court from having to forthrightly address the underlying issues, and letting it instead continue to undermine democracy by the myriad paper-cuts of procedural shadow-docket orders.
Bondi seems to want to be daddy’s girl - not very successfully - but the outrageous litigation brings no “honor” to the P2025 boys and may not be wanted by the Christian Nationalists who “matter”.
I mean, if they didn't appeal I'd be with you, but, if they do, I'm not sure that's substantively different from the "these cases are losers and DOJ lawyers don’t want to upset Trump by losing at the Supreme Court" option. Any alleged reluctance is offset by the fact of their doing it, IMHO.
I literally wrote that as a possibility. (Albeit, not in terms of DOGE, specifically.)
"A final reason for some of this is likely more pragmatic: DOJ is overwhelmed with its litigation obligations — between Trump’s lawless actions, the many challenges they prompt, the increased efforts to include DOJ’s political leadership in decisions (creating bottlenecks), and the firing and voluntary departures of countless career attorneys who actually knew how to run this sort of litigation."
It makes me wonder how many DOJ attorneys have been fired for investigating Trump (Jack Smith) as opposed to those who resigned because they believed they could not ethically represent the government’s positions in Trump’s cases.
Aside from the slow-walking, there's something to be said for "DOJ is overwhelmed with its litigation obligations" with so much litigation and so many appeals. Also, how is the DOJ finding enough lawyers willing to submit themselves to judicial ridicule for Trump's positions, not to mention being hung out to dry by their superiors and the Administration not telling them what's going on. I have fired clients for lying to me or not being forthcoming.
Hadn’t heard anywhere else Reason 2, awaiting death of rule of law. Easily the most ominous.
I was wondering whether these nonstop stays that allow Trump to keep doing what he wants was a way to delay the ultimate reckoning—forestall resistance. Who knows?
I believe the DOJ and the 6 Federalist Society supported Republican SC justices are in lock-step: the goal is to issue Shadow Docket decisions as quickly as possible while slow walking final decisions in an effort to implement Project 2025's goals before Trump's term ends. It is intentional and malevolent, all in furtherance of the primary Project 2025 goals prefaced by Kevin D. Roberts, PhD, President, Heritage Foundation, "A Promise to America':
1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect
our children.
2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the
American people.
3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution
calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”
Thank you for this focus. A lot has been written about the SCOTUS shadow-docket strategy of reshaping law without taking judicial responsibility for justifying the changes, but less attention has been given to the seeming concomitant -- that eventually SCOTUS must face accountability by ruling on and addressing the substantive merits of the underlying issues. Or . . . maybe not. Perhaps DOJ calculates, correctly, that the administration does better by shielding its puppet court from having to forthrightly address the underlying issues, and letting it instead continue to undermine democracy by the myriad paper-cuts of procedural shadow-docket orders.
Bondi seems to want to be daddy’s girl - not very successfully - but the outrageous litigation brings no “honor” to the P2025 boys and may not be wanted by the Christian Nationalists who “matter”.
Is it slow walking? Or is it a reluctance to proceed with Trump’s vanity litigation?
I mean, if they didn't appeal I'd be with you, but, if they do, I'm not sure that's substantively different from the "these cases are losers and DOJ lawyers don’t want to upset Trump by losing at the Supreme Court" option. Any alleged reluctance is offset by the fact of their doing it, IMHO.
Agreed. It’s become a previously inconceivable guessing game.
Could it (or part of it) be simple lack of personnel and/or incompetence? Did DOJ get DOGE-ed?
I literally wrote that as a possibility. (Albeit, not in terms of DOGE, specifically.)
"A final reason for some of this is likely more pragmatic: DOJ is overwhelmed with its litigation obligations — between Trump’s lawless actions, the many challenges they prompt, the increased efforts to include DOJ’s political leadership in decisions (creating bottlenecks), and the firing and voluntary departures of countless career attorneys who actually knew how to run this sort of litigation."
There's just so many Drew Ensigns to go around! And just so many flunkies willing to get their nads snapped off by district-court judges.
It makes me wonder how many DOJ attorneys have been fired for investigating Trump (Jack Smith) as opposed to those who resigned because they believed they could not ethically represent the government’s positions in Trump’s cases.
Aside from the slow-walking, there's something to be said for "DOJ is overwhelmed with its litigation obligations" with so much litigation and so many appeals. Also, how is the DOJ finding enough lawyers willing to submit themselves to judicial ridicule for Trump's positions, not to mention being hung out to dry by their superiors and the Administration not telling them what's going on. I have fired clients for lying to me or not being forthcoming.
Gawd, whatta mess!