"In a rambling and often confused post, Ezra Klein described that keeping the courts open was one of Schumer's justifications for allowing Republicans to fund government back in March. The argument Schumer made was threefold. First, Trump was being stopped in the courts. There were dozens of cases playing out against him, and he was losing again and again and again. Shut down the government, and you might shut down the courts."
"Not a single argument Schumer made then is valid now. First, Trump is not losing in the Supreme Court, which has weighed in again and again on his behalf. Instead of reprimanding Trump for his executive order unilaterally erasing the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all born here, it reprimanded the lower courts for imposing a national freeze on his order in the way they did. It has shown him extraordinary deference to the way he is exercising power."
The end-of-September funding deadline has renewed debate over whether Democrats should keep the government open. One consideration was preserving federal courts so ongoing litigation against Trump could proceed. Schumer supported funding to keep courts functioning so courts could check Trump. Critics argue that rationale has weakened because the Supreme Court has increasingly ruled in Trump's favor, particularly via the shadow docket and by rebuking lower courts' nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court's deference suggests the Roberts Court will not reliably block Trump's actions. The tradeoff for keeping the government open now involves political tactics and the realistic limits of judicial intervention.
Read at emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]