I know it’s a provocative title that one might associate with low effort Newsweek fluff pieces, but Ian Millhiser is a thoughtful, well credentialed, experienced legal analyst and his article ([paywall bypass](https://archive.is/dk7qf)) is fantastically detailed, has zero fat, and exhaustively cited (you love to see it!). The whole thing’s just dunk after dunk. I think it builds a very convincing case that sure, you can explain away individual decisions, but any big picture analysis can only conclude that they’re in the bag for Trump.
I don’t really know what to excerpt because the whole thing’s rock solid, but here’s the conclusion:
> Some of the decisions discussed above are individually defensible. Hell, I’ve defended some of them. The Court frequently faces legal questions that are unclear, and often the justices simply have to choose between multiple acceptable outcomes.
> But the crushing weight of all of these decisions put together should speak for itself. When Trump goes 16-for-16 on the shadow docket, when the Court invents entire legal doctrines to spite Biden, when it applies one set of rules to Democrats and another to Republicans, or when it puts off important legal questions for years, until resolving them will benefit a Republican president, those decisions cannot be explained because judges are sometimes forced to choose among multiple acceptable options. When there is ambiguity in the law, the Republican justices resolve it in favor of Republicans. And when there is no ambiguity in the law, the Republican justices often make something up so they can rule in favor of Republicans anyway.
> Nor does the fact that the Republican justices sometimes vote with their Democratic colleagues make them any less partisan. Senate Republicans split 31-15 on whether to approve aid to Ukraine in 2024. Seventeen Senate Republicans joined nearly every Democrat in supporting the CHIPS Act in 2022. The fact that a loyal Republican sometimes agrees with Democrats does not make them any less of a Republican.
If you read one article today, it should probably be this one. I’m gonna read it again a few times for sure. It’s just fantastic.
!ping LAW
Mundellian on
I am once again asking the Democrats to absorb that power is the only thing that matters in politics, not high minded idealism.
2 Comments
I know it’s a provocative title that one might associate with low effort Newsweek fluff pieces, but Ian Millhiser is a thoughtful, well credentialed, experienced legal analyst and his article ([paywall bypass](https://archive.is/dk7qf)) is fantastically detailed, has zero fat, and exhaustively cited (you love to see it!). The whole thing’s just dunk after dunk. I think it builds a very convincing case that sure, you can explain away individual decisions, but any big picture analysis can only conclude that they’re in the bag for Trump.
I don’t really know what to excerpt because the whole thing’s rock solid, but here’s the conclusion:
> Some of the decisions discussed above are individually defensible. Hell, I’ve defended some of them. The Court frequently faces legal questions that are unclear, and often the justices simply have to choose between multiple acceptable outcomes.
> But the crushing weight of all of these decisions put together should speak for itself. When Trump goes 16-for-16 on the shadow docket, when the Court invents entire legal doctrines to spite Biden, when it applies one set of rules to Democrats and another to Republicans, or when it puts off important legal questions for years, until resolving them will benefit a Republican president, those decisions cannot be explained because judges are sometimes forced to choose among multiple acceptable options. When there is ambiguity in the law, the Republican justices resolve it in favor of Republicans. And when there is no ambiguity in the law, the Republican justices often make something up so they can rule in favor of Republicans anyway.
> Nor does the fact that the Republican justices sometimes vote with their Democratic colleagues make them any less partisan. Senate Republicans split 31-15 on whether to approve aid to Ukraine in 2024. Seventeen Senate Republicans joined nearly every Democrat in supporting the CHIPS Act in 2022. The fact that a loyal Republican sometimes agrees with Democrats does not make them any less of a Republican.
If you read one article today, it should probably be this one. I’m gonna read it again a few times for sure. It’s just fantastic.
!ping LAW
I am once again asking the Democrats to absorb that power is the only thing that matters in politics, not high minded idealism.