Dear Friends,                                                                                      Hey Jud(iciary)e

Is there a problem with universal injunctions by federal judges? Of course there is. Does that mean that universal injunctions by federal judges must be forbidden? Of course it doesn’t. So what’s the problem? The usual one: bad actors. There is no human aspiration under sun moon and stars however reasonable and good that cannot be fucked (or should I say f****d) up. And not always by bad actors.

But here bad actors are the problem. When Biden was president the MAGAs had a bunch of judges (mostly Trump appointed) who could be counted on to strike down any legislation the bossman wanted struck down.

Now the lottery of the judicial system is proving its worth. Over, and over, and over again judges appointed by any president where even one judge is still alive have struck down executive order after executive order. – Rule by decree is something that we must take up. – The illegality of these orders is obvious. The judicial ruling is not only justified but imperative. But first, executive power allows the president to do things quickly. The law, for very good reasons, is slow. The only immediate judicial act is an injunction. It can stop things at least for the time being – though as we know too well often only after the damage has been done.

So, bad actors. The MAGAs and their bought judges. Bad, but limited. That was then. Now: the executive branch in its entirety, a Congressional majority more than willing to surrender its own prerogatives to the executive, and a judiciary … well, the judiciary is in an odd state. Just considering lawsuits against Trump’s executive orders, the federal courts are doing pretty well.

But the problem is that every time a federal judge strikes down one of the executive orders the executive summons MAGA to howl out in unison: judicial overreach, judges aren’t allowed to judge executive decisions; and anyway their all woke judges trying to obstruct Trump’s attempt to Make America Great Again.

All lies. But say it often enough, say it loud enough, and some of it rubs off, including on the so-called liberal mainstream media.

And then there’s supposed to be a final arbiter, the Supreme Court, whose job is nothing other than to judge legislation and legal judgements from all lower courts according to the fundamental law, the Constitution.

I’m going to say that the boys did pretty good on this one (see “and all for an undelivered commission”). They knew it could go wrong, but maybe not in the way it’s going wrong now. The Supreme Bad Actors are members of the Supreme Court itself, and its majority.

More than anywhere else both-siderism must be rejected (and denounced) here. Every Republican nominee for the Supreme Court, at least since Robert Bork, has been, and has been hand-picked, because of their extreme conservative (reactionary) interpretations of the Constitutions. Every Democratic nominee has been solidly in the mainstream of Constitutional scholarship. There are important reasons for this difference, that’s for later.

Now, just look: all the rulings on “religious freedom”; on women’s rights; on LGBTQ rights; on issues that are usually unnoticed, but fundamental, such as the Chevron preference doctrine. A very limited list. And then: the 14th Amendment decision; the Immunity decision; and now the decision on universal injunctions. This last was a clever way to get the Supreme Court to obstruct opposition to the executive order abolishing birthright citizenship. They all, every justice, knew perfectly well what was going on.

A specific point: Federal courts are, as the name suggests, federal. Their judgements apply to the entire federation (that’s what “federal” means). It is the prerogative of a federal judge to rule that any action by either the executive or the legislature illegal. This judgement, as a federal judgement, necessarily applies to the nation as a whole. The content of different judgements may seem more or less general. Birthright citizenship concerns every citizen of the United States of America. If you wanted an example of why judgements of federal courts must be federal, applying to every person in the land, you couldn’t have a better one.

A general point: The current majority on the Supreme Court is corrupt, not just in the broad sense of bribery, etc., but in the technical sense developed in England in the 18th century, and adopted already by colonial legislatures in America; central to the Federalist Papers, and so bequeathed to the US Congress. Corruption is any action by a public official, or faction, undertaken for their own private purposes and against the good of the people.

The Supreme Court as it is today is … finish the sentence as you please.

Love and solidarity,

            Bobby