Agreed. I just read his piece, and I think we both agree on most of what it going on here; I think we're just weighing signals and the import of steps a little differently, leading to framing that looks very different — but I'm not sure, if you deconstruct it all, really substantively is. I'm very concerned about the signal but think it …
Agreed. I just read his piece, and I think we both agree on most of what it going on here; I think we're just weighing signals and the import of steps a little differently, leading to framing that looks very different — but I'm not sure, if you deconstruct it all, really substantively is. I'm very concerned about the signal but think it could still turn out OK for the rule of law. Steve thinks Wednesday's step was OK for the rule of law but is very concerned about what it could lead to ultimately.
Agreed. I just read his piece, and I think we both agree on most of what it going on here; I think we're just weighing signals and the import of steps a little differently, leading to framing that looks very different — but I'm not sure, if you deconstruct it all, really substantively is. I'm very concerned about the signal but think it could still turn out OK for the rule of law. Steve thinks Wednesday's step was OK for the rule of law but is very concerned about what it could lead to ultimately.
Thanks for sharing your perspective on the SCOTUS stay and your perspective on Vladeck's perspective! :-)