For the right, it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" life. Also: A recent filing in the Alabama investigation raises questions about a big claim in the panel's "inquiry" and report.
I've been operating under the assumption that if Republicans win the election, what's left of democracy, the rule of law, and certainly human and civil rights, are gone. In which case logical arguments won't make a difference to anything anymore.
So the case to consider is if Biden wins the election. Setting aside the violence that is certain to follow from Republican sympathizers, if we manage to move forward continuing under the current constitutional system, where are we headed?
Considering the sheer defiance coming from the federal judiciary, will that branch finish off what the Republicans couldn't in the election? Is judicial reform an imperative for the republic to survive? Meaning Democrats would have to win both houses of Congress in November too, such that legislation could be passed? (The Senate will be almost impossible to keep this year). Would SCOTUS accept any oversight of the judiciary at all, or will we have a constitutional crisis between the judiciary and the other two branches?
TL;DR - Exactly how many hoops do we have to jump through for anything to ever be okay in this country again? I'm trying to figure out, as a practical matter, where to look for light at the end of the tunnel. What do we need to do?
This sounds a little like the court shenanigans in the period leading up to the French Revolution. There, as here, the courts seem to think that hubris and self dealing are acceptable. Things didn’t turn out as expected there. How will the story ending here be written? CFFG takes office and obliterates the judicial system? An adult in the room takes charge and sends the kids home? Curiouser and curiouser this is.
Very well done, Chris. So many moving parts, so many weird players, so much bad faith: it's shenanigans, all right, and you've done very good work getting it in front of us.
Excellent analysis, the evidence you present from the record is compelling. Kafka, is indeed spiritually summoned by this process. We are in this together.
I remain boggled by this. Does anyone know WHY Axon transferred the case after her prior case was before the jury? Couldn't she just have postponed the beginning of plaintiffs case a few days? You may have said this in your earlier posts, but it sounds like the "already to jury" bit is news since then? Did they object when their new filing got put before Burke?
This sounds a lot like "poor widdle me, lawyers don' just respec' me" similar to the pissed off judge in the Southwest Airlines case who ruled the lawyers had to undergo "religious liberty training" because they didn't use the EXACT words s/he wanted in their posting to employees on the subject of discrimination.
I thought Clearance and Alito were horrible! They are; but Axon and Burke are just bald-faced lying as they piss on the “Rule of Law” in favor of calling it a rainstorm and ushering in the Law of Rule(rs.)
"Hello, client, it is your lawyer. I called to inform you I dismissed your case because I was not sure why it was assigned to another judge. I hope this doesn't affect your claim at all. Anyway, call me if you need anything." - A lawyer not judge shopping.
It's Kafkaesque however you analyze it.
I've been operating under the assumption that if Republicans win the election, what's left of democracy, the rule of law, and certainly human and civil rights, are gone. In which case logical arguments won't make a difference to anything anymore.
So the case to consider is if Biden wins the election. Setting aside the violence that is certain to follow from Republican sympathizers, if we manage to move forward continuing under the current constitutional system, where are we headed?
Considering the sheer defiance coming from the federal judiciary, will that branch finish off what the Republicans couldn't in the election? Is judicial reform an imperative for the republic to survive? Meaning Democrats would have to win both houses of Congress in November too, such that legislation could be passed? (The Senate will be almost impossible to keep this year). Would SCOTUS accept any oversight of the judiciary at all, or will we have a constitutional crisis between the judiciary and the other two branches?
TL;DR - Exactly how many hoops do we have to jump through for anything to ever be okay in this country again? I'm trying to figure out, as a practical matter, where to look for light at the end of the tunnel. What do we need to do?
You read my mind. We are in some deep shite indeed.
President Biden seems to be acting as if addressing judicial corruption is equivalent to Trump’s assault on the rule of law.
Damn this is good, Chris
And...the panel...lied. How can we read this any other way?. And why do I feel this is just going to make Burke even angrier and more vindictive?
This sounds a little like the court shenanigans in the period leading up to the French Revolution. There, as here, the courts seem to think that hubris and self dealing are acceptable. Things didn’t turn out as expected there. How will the story ending here be written? CFFG takes office and obliterates the judicial system? An adult in the room takes charge and sends the kids home? Curiouser and curiouser this is.
This is amazing reporting. Thank you!
Very well done, Chris. So many moving parts, so many weird players, so much bad faith: it's shenanigans, all right, and you've done very good work getting it in front of us.
Chris,
Excellent analysis, the evidence you present from the record is compelling. Kafka, is indeed spiritually summoned by this process. We are in this together.
I remain boggled by this. Does anyone know WHY Axon transferred the case after her prior case was before the jury? Couldn't she just have postponed the beginning of plaintiffs case a few days? You may have said this in your earlier posts, but it sounds like the "already to jury" bit is news since then? Did they object when their new filing got put before Burke?
This sounds a lot like "poor widdle me, lawyers don' just respec' me" similar to the pissed off judge in the Southwest Airlines case who ruled the lawyers had to undergo "religious liberty training" because they didn't use the EXACT words s/he wanted in their posting to employees on the subject of discrimination.
To the extent the panel isn't acting "adversarial," that might be because it is acting inquisitorial
I thought Clearance and Alito were horrible! They are; but Axon and Burke are just bald-faced lying as they piss on the “Rule of Law” in favor of calling it a rainstorm and ushering in the Law of Rule(rs.)
Wow, did you see the latest?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.almd.77755/gov.uscourts.almd.77755.573.0.pdf
Yes, indeed, mentioned it in a note (and in chat) earlier. Here’s the note: https://substack.com/@chrisgeidner/note/c-59097346
"Hello, client, it is your lawyer. I called to inform you I dismissed your case because I was not sure why it was assigned to another judge. I hope this doesn't affect your claim at all. Anyway, call me if you need anything." - A lawyer not judge shopping.
"accepting sone" should be "some"