The Court's withholding small and big information is what lots of info withholding is - a way to exercise and broadcast its power. At its most juvenile "we know and you don't!"
But wouldn't that leave same issue as the judicial conference committee has been taken over hertiage foundation group and refuses to do any oversight with the financial corruption for using their federal jobs to get financial improvement in their and families lives.
29:36 I take issue with the idea that the cases under are so huge they're difficult to get right on the merits and standing - reason being, most of these high profile cases wouldn't require any deep thought unless you were trying to come up with the best ways to date one's confirmation bias rather than evaluate the cases themselves. If you just took the merits of the evidence you wouldn't need to spend all that time to find a 19th century excuse that hasn't been challenged yet for the one instance to apply textualism to. It's actually insane that there's any complication about presidential immunity or purjury or illegal handling of classified documents or campaign finance violations from a man who bragged about all of it on effin television ffs. How is this complicated? Yes its high profile but it's so stupid and obvious it's not hard, it just happens to have profile. Pretending any of this is complicated is absurd to any public highschool educated simpleton like myself. Grab a dictionary, read the law, evaluate the arguments. Done in a few hours or days. It's not complicated.
The Court's withholding small and big information is what lots of info withholding is - a way to exercise and broadcast its power. At its most juvenile "we know and you don't!"
SCOTUS has literally become a joke. It's time to just do away with them do away with the whole idea. It's just become a circus of Ridiculousness
Replace it with a group effort of all judges in the federal conference
But wouldn't that leave same issue as the judicial conference committee has been taken over hertiage foundation group and refuses to do any oversight with the financial corruption for using their federal jobs to get financial improvement in their and families lives.
The Court won't change because then they would have to EXPLAIN. That would prelude deciding cases for your "patrons"
The court is hopelessly broken. What is the point of nitpicking how hopelessly broken?
A good argument for why the court should be expanded to 13.
Cool! Republicans can then expand it to 18 next time they have majorities in Congress and the presidency.
His vacation home has a Nautical Yardarm flag pole. Yardarm....huh
29:36 I take issue with the idea that the cases under are so huge they're difficult to get right on the merits and standing - reason being, most of these high profile cases wouldn't require any deep thought unless you were trying to come up with the best ways to date one's confirmation bias rather than evaluate the cases themselves.
If you just took the merits of the evidence you wouldn't need to spend all that time to find a 19th century excuse that hasn't been challenged yet for the one instance to apply textualism to.
It's actually insane that there's any complication about presidential immunity or purjury or illegal handling of classified documents or campaign finance violations from a man who bragged about all of it on effin television ffs. How is this complicated? Yes its high profile but it's so stupid and obvious it's not hard, it just happens to have profile. Pretending any of this is complicated is absurd to any public highschool educated simpleton like myself.
Grab a dictionary, read the law, evaluate the arguments. Done in a few hours or days. It's not complicated.
Too strident. Audio editor should have modulated voices or producer might have coached participants. Rhetorical error to start out yelling.