Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Judge Sullivan orders neither snow, nor rain, nor gloom of DeJoy stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds   (politico.com) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

2151 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Oct 2020 at 3:40 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



29 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-28 12:34:06 AM  
Odds of Trump admin appealing to the SCOTUS for emergency relief due to irreparable harm?

Good on Sullivan though!
 
2020-10-28 12:52:49 AM  
Somebody is getting a big ol' can of woopass for Halloween.
 
2020-10-28 12:53:16 AM  
These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.
 
2020-10-28 12:57:40 AM  

buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.


You haven't met an Originaljst have you?  Constitution and/or precedent don't mean nothin' when there is tyranny that need doin'.
 
2020-10-28 1:09:23 AM  

phalamir: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

You haven't met an Originaljst have you?  Constitution and/or precedent don't mean nothin' when there is tyranny that need doin'.


Yeah, I have. But they need Roberts and Gorsuch to get a win. I'm an amateur follower of the court and it seems like they are writing for those two guys.  Everyone knows how the others will vote. That's sad but it feels like what needs to be done to eek out a win here and there.  I read Kaplan's ruling today -(SDNY) - and it is the same writing style targeting both.
 
2020-10-28 3:45:43 AM  
What about Mrs. Cake?
 
2020-10-28 3:53:45 AM  
The fact that there is any argument over whether or not it's OK to intentionally sabotage the post office in an election year, or any year ever for that matter, is a sad state of affairs to be in the first place.
 
2020-10-28 4:09:09 AM  

phalamir: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

You haven't met an Originaljst have you?  Constitution and/or precedent don't mean nothin' when there is tyranny that need doin'.


They're like sov.citizens, but with a law degree.
 
2020-10-28 4:14:08 AM  

mrparks: phalamir: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

You haven't met an Originaljst have you?  Constitution and/or precedent don't mean nothin' when there is tyranny that need doin'.

They're like sov.citizens, but with a law degree.

king of vegas: The fact that there is any argument over whether or not it's OK to intentionally sabotage the post office in an election year, or any year ever for that matter, is a sad state of affairs to be in the first place.

Obligatory:
ARREST THIS SCARY GENTLEMAN | A Tale of the Postmaster
Youtube QzxnNCOnXeA
/First verse lyrics by yours truly, as posted in several Fark threads before this video came out. I also posted them in a comment on another song this guy did to the same tune, and he adapted them and made this.
 
2020-10-28 4:22:57 AM  
Judge Sullivan has done the world a great service.
 
2020-10-28 4:25:05 AM  
Justice is not entirely dead yet in Trump's America?

Good. Keep it that way.
 
2020-10-28 4:32:05 AM  

quatchi: Justice is not entirely dead yet in Trump's America?

Good. Keep it that way.


Well, there are a few at the top not trying to deliberately shoot your country in the head.

Unfortunately, they are about as rare as albino ducks.
 
2020-10-28 4:38:30 AM  

GrogSmash: quatchi: Justice is not entirely dead yet in Trump's America?

Good. Keep it that way.

Well, there are a few at the top not trying to deliberately shoot your country in the head.

Unfortunately, they are about as rare as albino ducks.


Sounds familiar...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-28 4:44:34 AM  
O judge.

Laurie Anderson - O Superman [Official Music Video]
Youtube Vkfpi2H8tOE
 
2020-10-28 5:17:16 AM  
That would be a Federal "OH SNAP!" ...  And what I hope happens, is that Dejoy is caught lying
or not doing the fullest extent of the judicial order and gets his fat ass thrown in DC City Jail for a weekend
for contempt..
 
2020-10-28 5:57:24 AM  
Or what?
 
2020-10-28 6:00:11 AM  

phalamir: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

You haven't met an Originaljst have you?  Constitution and/or precedent don't mean nothin' when there is tyranny that need doin'.


And yet the Originalists have no trouble insisting on their right to overturn legislation passed by Congress -- a power that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution (and which exists in no other country in the world, except maybe Germany). Justice Marshall simply decided on his own that the Court should have that power -- because he personally opposed something the Congress did -- and everyone went along with it. If the Originalists weren't such farking hypocrites, they would reject that tradition completely.
 
2020-10-28 6:09:01 AM  
This is the same judge that wants wring Flynn's lawyers necks
 
2020-10-28 6:58:33 AM  
This is a nice ruling, but ignoring the law has been a hallmark of this presidency.  What happens when the judge's ruling is ignored?  See Bush v. Gore if you don't think that delayed ballots won't be thrown out.
 
2020-10-28 7:46:44 AM  

Mr. Shabooboo: That would be a Federal "OH SNAP!" ...  And what I hope happens, is that Dejoy is caught lying
or not doing the fullest extent of the judicial order and gets his fat ass thrown in DC City Jail for a weekend
for contempt..


I'd prefer drawing and quartering but ya take what you can get.
 
2020-10-28 7:57:01 AM  

sleze: Or what?


Nothing. The order will be completely disregarded, and no one will do anything.
 
2020-10-28 9:02:38 AM  

mksmith: phalamir: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

You haven't met an Originaljst have you?  Constitution and/or precedent don't mean nothin' when there is tyranny that need doin'.

And yet the Originalists have no trouble insisting on their right to overturn legislation passed by Congress -- a power that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution (and which exists in no other country in the world, except maybe Germany). Justice Marshall simply decided on his own that the Court should have that power -- because he personally opposed something the Congress did -- and everyone went along with it. If the Originalists weren't such farking hypocrites, they would reject that tradition completely.


...unless you take the read that SCOTUS was only there as a civil or criminal appeals court, and that there was simply NO way to undo a clearly unConstitutional thing Congress or the Executive was doing (trusting those branches to decide for themselves what is and is not legal - a view which is self-evidently ludicrous in light of the last 4-100 years) - it is a power that very much appears in the Constitution.

Article 3, section 2. (Hamilton expanded the idea in Federalist 78, which isn't law, but lays out exactly why judicial review is part and parcel of Article 3.)
 
2020-10-28 10:04:23 AM  

mksmith: phalamir: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

You haven't met an Originaljst have you?  Constitution and/or precedent don't mean nothin' when there is tyranny that need doin'.

And yet the Originalists have no trouble insisting on their right to overturn legislation passed by Congress -- a power that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution (and which exists in no other country in the world, except maybe Germany). Justice Marshall simply decided on his own that the Court should have that power -- because he personally opposed something the Congress did -- and everyone went along with it. If the Originalists weren't such farking hypocrites, they would reject that tradition completely.


The Federalists strongly advocated for the judicial power to hold acts of Congress unconstitutional, while the anti-Federalists were appalled by the idea. As in so many cases, the language of the Constitution was intentionally left vague enough for either faction to claim textual support by implication.

That's the biggest problem with originalism - it assumes that the Framers were in agreement as to the meaning of the constitutional text, when of course that was not at all the case.
 
2020-10-28 10:05:16 AM  

buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.


Of course SCOTUS can reverse them...and give the Biden Administration more reason to expand the Court.
 
2020-10-28 10:16:09 AM  

Rwa2play: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

Of course SCOTUS can reverse them...and give the Biden Administration more reason to expand the Court.


13 Circuits, 13 SCOTUS judges.  That's how Lincoln reasoned the move to 9. Republicans love to talk about how Lincoln did things. We can, too.
 
2020-10-28 10:16:36 AM  

Dr Dreidel: mksmith: phalamir: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

You haven't met an Originaljst have you?  Constitution and/or precedent don't mean nothin' when there is tyranny that need doin'.

And yet the Originalists have no trouble insisting on their right to overturn legislation passed by Congress -- a power that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution (and which exists in no other country in the world, except maybe Germany). Justice Marshall simply decided on his own that the Court should have that power -- because he personally opposed something the Congress did -- and everyone went along with it. If the Originalists weren't such farking hypocrites, they would reject that tradition completely.

...unless you take the read that SCOTUS was only there as a civil or criminal appeals court, and that there was simply NO way to undo a clearly unConstitutional thing Congress or the Executive was doing (trusting those branches to decide for themselves what is and is not legal - a view which is self-evidently ludicrous in light of the last 4-100 years) - it is a power that very much appears in the Constitution.

Article 3, section 2. (Hamilton expanded the idea in Federalist 78, which isn't law, but lays out exactly why judicial review is part and parcel of Article 3.)


Nope. Article 3, Section 2 says not a word about the Court deciding the constitutionality of any Congressional act. And the Origininalist position is that the only thing that matters is what the Constitution states in black & white. Strict construction means you don't interpret "what the Founders might have said. had they only known how things would change." No, they meant what they said and they said what they meant, and that's it. Just like Moses and the tablets of the law. The Constitution is the Gospel and mere mortals are not allowed to interpret it to suit later needs.
 
2020-10-28 10:29:57 AM  

mksmith: No, they meant what they said and they said what they meant, and that's it.


Seems to me that if a controversy arises over whether a given law or rule is Constitutional (or in keeping with other, lesser, duly-passed laws in the jurisdiction), the courts were EXPLICITY empowered to decide that.

Please, explain how Judicial Review is proscribed by Article 3, section 2. Here's the full text, in case you want to cite from it:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

// hint: it's not
// and given that the drafter of that very section signed his name (pseudonym) to my interpretation of it suggests the Framers were VERY cognizant of what they were doing
// although, who knows what the phrase "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution" meant in 1789 (emphasis added)? Might have meant "no case which turns on what the law and Constitution actually means, if the controversy originates solely within one branch of government, should be decided by the Courts" - who's to say Scalia or Barrett didn't have a seance with Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and 40 other white dudes to make sure of it?
 
2020-10-28 1:55:23 PM  

buckwebb: Rwa2play: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

Of course SCOTUS can reverse them...and give the Biden Administration more reason to expand the Court.

13 Circuits, 13 SCOTUS judges.  That's how Lincoln reasoned the move to 9. Republicans love to talk about how Lincoln did things. We can, too.


The Democrats are under no obligation to justify expanding the court to any number they want.  It is their right to expand the court in any way they please and they owe no one an explanation.  Make it 378 for all it matters.  The number doesn't need to be tied to anything whatsoever.

Why are we playing into rules that aren't real?  Screw that.
 
2020-10-28 2:35:31 PM  

austerity101: buckwebb: Rwa2play: buckwebb: These days I feel like District Court Judges Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson both of whom are in the powerful DC Circuit are the only people biatch-slapping the Trump administration.

Of course they will appeal, but these two are significant roadblocks. Their rullings are now peppered with both interpretations of the constitution AND textualist work to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse them.

Of course SCOTUS can reverse them...and give the Biden Administration more reason to expand the Court.

13 Circuits, 13 SCOTUS judges.  That's how Lincoln reasoned the move to 9. Republicans love to talk about how Lincoln did things. We can, too.

The Democrats are under no obligation to justify expanding the court to any number they want.  It is their right to expand the court in any way they please and they owe no one an explanation.  Make it 378 for all it matters.  The number doesn't need to be tied to anything whatsoever.

Why are we playing into rules that aren't real?  Screw that.


Well. I think it is nice to have a logical dressing why you do a thing.  A fig leaf, if you will. But I agree in sum that Congress doesn't need any reason to do their constitutionally-assigned rights.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.