Originally published at: Paxton, the DOJ, and a Friendly Judge Took Five Hours to Box in Future Presidents - TPM – Talking Points Memo
On Monday, the Trump administration scored a quiet win in court. It did so in complete control of the circumstances: it got to pick the judge. Its opponent wasn’t opposed. The result — encompassing the entire case — came in a matter of hours. It was the case of Texas v. DOJ, an obscure administrative lawsuit filed…
Miller is another on my ever-growing list of obituaries I can’t wait to read. I’ll settle for prosecution and imprisonment.
7 Likes
Problem is, he’s only 40 years old.
He could be here for another 30 years.
3 Likes
So convict him of multiple instances of defrauding the US, sentence him to serve consecutively and let him die in prison. Of course, as big an asshole as he is, he’d probably have any number of fellow prisoners lining up to do him in.
7 Likes
Does it really matter what a judge says? I posit no. As we have seen, a president can do whatever it wants whenever it wants however it wants.
1 Like
We really need to stop calling the immigration administrators “judges”. These are not trial judges. They aren’t part of the judiciary. They generally do what their boss tells them, and if they don’t, they get fired. It’s nothing at all like the judicial system, and it’s an abomination of journalism to pretend these are courts or judges in the normal sense of the words.
3 Likes
A good reason to put him in jail to rot away the rest of his life.
2 Likes
When do we start?
2 Likes
Monica Haymond, a professor at Northwestern’s Pritzker Law School, told TPM that settlements between the federal government and a party fundamentally friendly to the administration have been going on since the Carter administration, but that the speed with which the court decided the case and the breadth of the judge’s ruling marked it as different. That’s in part, Haymond said because the court ruled without “adverse argument or presentation.”
Seems like a good opportunity for a future Dem President to simply say they are not bound by a corrupt agreement in which an adversarial party was not present.
2 Likes
If there’s no harm being done, then what law is being broken? Seems like if there’s no crime or dispute then nobody has standing to bring the case in the first place.
1 Like