Five of nine Supreme Court members, and five of six Republican Supreme Court members, were executive branch attorneys dedicated to finding ways to expand presidential power at the expense of Congress. As justices, they act with a bias against Congress and in favor of presidential power…at least as long as that president is doing Conservative things.
Presidential power breaks down when the president is not faithfully enacting the laws of Congress, which he is required to do by the Constitution!, and when the president acts corruptly, aiming to enrich himself and his friends and family rather than do what is best for the country.
Trump uses his power as president to change US policy specifically to punish businesses owned or run by people who didn’t support him politically and in favor of those who do support him or are related to him.
Parties can now coordinate with candidates by using money in ways that they were previously banned from doing.
Attempts to prevent corruption with campaign finance laws has failed. We may need to rethink it. Money has found a way to affect politics even with campaign finance laws. If anything, the restrictions have made the super wealthy more powerful!
Making campaign finance more complicated with more regulation makes it harder for the smaller players to legally take part. The super wealthy have the means to figure out ways around regulation.
Republican Supreme Court justices use the shadow docket to stop policies they don’t like, and to allow policies they do like. They are more partisan ideological actors than judges focused on the law.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court advanced the shadow docket as a prominent way to make impactful decisions while fighting with the Obama administration.They wanted to stop major Obama actions so that a final ruling wouldn’t come after the actions have already had a major impact. Yet, during the Trump administration, the shadow docket has often been used to allow Trump to go ahead with actions. The conservatives of the Supreme Court appear to be using the shadow docket to implement their political ideology, not execute sound and considered legal decisions.
“Trump appointees who defy the president’s will are showing the courage of their convictions, applying the law as they understand it rather than reflexively deferring to the politician who gave them their jobs. But Trump, who takes it for granted that justices vote the way they do for political reasons, neither understands nor appreciates judicial independence.”
The Conservative Supreme Court justices can’t agree on what the major questions doctrine is and what exceptions to it should be.
The Supreme Court made a major change in how lower courts operate by limiting nationwide injunctions. Such injunctions could have prevented the US government from illegally taking all this money in the first place and avoided the issue of if, when, and to whom, the tariff money is paid back. This policy allows the president to act illegally for months or years until the Supreme Court finally resolves a case.
“When federal judges told the Trump administration that it was necessary to provide due process to suspected undocumented immigrants before deporting them, Homan said the administration was “not stopping,” and added: “I don’t care what the judges think.”
…
The FBI reportedly recorded Homan accepting a $50,000 bribe from undercover agents posing as potential government contractors. Homan has denied taking the money or doing anything wrong, and the White House has dismissed the case as politically motivated, but lots of questions remain unanswered”
“It’s highly unusual for federal judges to issue such direct accusations and contempt threats against the government. However, an increasing number of judges have become exasperated by the Trump administration’s noncompliance with their orders in immigration cases.
…
The Trump administration insists that it can arrest anyone present in the country unlawfully without a warrant and hold them in mandatory detention without a bond hearing. This interpretation of the law abandons a precedent that has been in place for nearly 30 years.
…
judges find themselves batting down the same specious arguments from the Justice Department over and over.”