The assumption, here, is that voters in Iowa are sensitive and opposed to Van Hollen’s trip and will vote accordingly, but that the judiciary is immune to politics and public perception.

Yeah, although (ugh!) president might be mostly immune anyway.

I guess I’m okay with an amendment that says president can’t pardon immediate relatives and members of the president’s own administration. I am highly skeptical that pardons are ever going to be a significant part of decarceration

In theory, Frye could exclude novel methodologies that are in fact scientifically rigorous. I can’t think of example where that’s happened in my state which switched over in 2020. I don’t think shaken baby would be revisited based on what I know. (Nothing super novel about the methodology).

This is at least somewhat analogous to subpoenaing a judge in a post conviction hearing to address misconduct (eg trial counsel error) when the judge was private counsel. I know first hand that’s been done!

Depends whether I thought he was an actual Nazi or not, if I thought he treated her right or not, and a hundred other variables. I’d likely opine (at least privately) that I don’t like the tat, even if I thought he was an otherwise good guy.

What’s odd about being more open to a candidate who agrees with you on the issues?

This view, that folks on the left should not criticize or be mean to folks more in the middle, let’s call it for what it is, is political correctness.

Presumably Wong Kim Ark is binding on District Judges, but not, it seems binding on Trump. Also allowing trump yo lock up and deporting someone who was born here for the great sin of not initiating a lawsuit is an absolute mockery of equal protection under the law.

I think folks aren’t focused enough on the fact that the birthright question is settled law. This is not some random clown imposing its views on the constitution on everyone else. These judges are applying the supreme court’s own constitutional holdings.

I am decidedly not a fan of universal injunctions, but the court goes too far here for a couple of reasons. 1. The birthright citizenship question is settled law. 2. Treating similarly situated citizens differently here makes a mockery of equal protection under the law,

To be clear, I also think the idea that dems lack any sort of principles beyond trying to win elections hurts the party politically

Weirdly, I think I agree with Yglesias. There have to be some issues that are so important to us that we would support them irrespective of public opinion, even if they cost us an election. Protecting due process for me is one of them

He’s saying courts don’t need to enforce the second amendment. Good to know!

Not to mention, the Order does cite the APA as well as numerous provisions of the constitution for the contention that the administration exceeded it’s authority. I mean it’s only a 4-page order, see for yourself. ag.ny.gov/sites/defaul...

He didn’t blame the victim. He pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter. Was 5 years a fair sentence? I dunno, but it sounds like he had quite a bit of mitigation and a plausible defense at trial.

Don’t disagree that smoking on the subway should be enforced, but in practice, selective enforcement of public order rules means it’s just the black folk that get arrested. What do you suggest we do about the racial inequities in the criminal justice system?