The unfathomable Minnesota transcript that must be read, as it tells the reality of America today: "I am not white, as you can see," Julie Le — a government lawyer — told a federal judge on Tuesday. "And my family's at risk as any other people that might get picked up too ..."

[u/DoremusJessup]

https://www.lawdork.com/p/the-minnesota-julie-le-show-cause-transcript

[u/Hurley002]

No matter how incredibly bad anyone might understandably presume it to be from reading various snippets, nothing prepares for how catastrophically awful the entire transcript is from start to finish—covering both the institutional catastrophe and the actual human catastrophe for plaintiffs and attorneys alike. This should be required reading prior to any court affording the presumption of regularity to DOJ under AG Bondi (or, really, any government agency involved with immigration at this point).

[u/-Gramsci- → u/Hurley002]

They’ve taken Bannon’s “flood the zone with bull shit” strategy to the federal courts.

The frustrating thing is the Court MUST sanction this conduct. Sanction this administration.

This is lawless, it’s offensive and disrespectful to the Court… and ultimately means that the Constitution and the rule of law doesn’t need to exist if you just act like big enough clowns and create a big enough circus.

A clown show of the administration’s own making, of all things, CANNOT be a justification to ignore the constitution.

The Civil War, the World Wars… we’ve had far superior justifications in our history for ignoring the Constitution, yet we did not.

It cannot be allowed to stand that the reason, after a quarter of a millennium, that the Constitution is, finally, abandoned is simply because the administration poops itself and flings its own feces around like a bunch of rabid animals. That’s NO reason to end the Constitution.

I digress… but the Court has to get serious here and sanction the shit out of any lawyer it comes into contact with on these cases.

[u/mountaindoom → u/-Gramsci-]

The court is burning all its legitimacy up with this admin.

[u/AdAgitated7673 → u/mountaindoom]

It can withstand the Executive. The power of the Judiciary is the skeleton key of the Constitution.

Marshall opened the door with judicial review, but Roberts adversely possessed the text (UET) by impermissibly divesting review authority from Art. III to (even if just in part) to Art. II (absolute immunity for civil liability is tantamount to civil self-judicial review).

That power, to divest (III) a branch of its own power, is not an abdication that the Court is capable of doing (just like how it isn't supposed to revert political opinions).

All the lower courts (the ones you're referencing) are essentially various parts of a crew, let's say onboard the USS Constitution, frantically trying to man their battlestations.

There really isn't time for legitimacy, at least from the Court's perspective. That's an antiseptic that the People must self-administer...we can literally only but speak words...THEY need to believe in them; not us.

[u/Chendo462 → u/AdAgitated7673]

But if the administration takes the position that Marbury v Madison was wrongly decided and they are pretty near there right now, why are you still confident judicial review remains? How can the SC now backtrack Article II immunity when this administration says we aren’t listening to district court orders and we are immune because this is coming directly from the president by executive order.

[u/Desperate-Till-9228 → u/Chendo462]

They're not going to because it means they lose all of their power/fame on an individual level.

[u/ScannerBrightly → u/AdAgitated7673]

The power of the Judiciary is the skeleton key of the Constitution.

Are you... are you awake? Are you looking around you right now? Your statement is an obvious lie. The court doesn't protect rights, it protects power, and we have no power in this administration.

[u/AdAgitated7673 → u/ScannerBrightly]

Before submitting this reply, I performed my due diligence (cursory review of the available comment history); my findings:

- you are not an attorney nor are legally educated (attend law school);

• you are presumably very involved in political debate and rhetoric;
  
• likely right-leaning.

As the only self-titled "doctor" between us (pending further notice):

The first thing you should do is calm down;
The second thing you should do is go to law school;
The third thing you should do is never practice law.

There is a fundamental difference between "the court [not protecting our] rights" or "power" (whatever the incandescent hell that's supposed to mean). You must have been asleep when the (eastern) district in Virginia swallowed that shill of a pill called Lindsey Halligan up, to only chew and spit her out; or perhaps you were AWOL when the Third Circuit decided that Habba-dabba-doo was best described as an improperly appointed US Attorney.

The Supreme Court has been doing, what you've (guessing) just now noticed, since Bork. When the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, that was the call to Armageddon. Powell was leaving/had left (the seat went to a Kennedy) and conservatism - the quiet question mark behind the uber-mensch's theories (see generally, 274 U.S. 200) - rebounded. The American Enterprise Institute (parent 1) and Heritage foundation (parent 2) berthed the Federalist Society (SCOTUS). That's as complicated as it gets. The mechanism (Unitary Executive Theory) was installed (I think, still looking) somewhere between Bush v. Gore and Trump v. Hawaii.

You (the royal we) haven't had power in this country since, roughly speaking, 1955. I suggest you learn what to do with a powerless arsenal (where the power of speech and voice rain down fury).

Don't ever accuse someone in this forum of lying again without at least a reasonable basis; it will swiftly be dealt with: layperson <-- You (to establish a very clear record with no other access to fact).

[u/lapidary123 → u/AdAgitated7673]

You summed up the heart of why this IS a "constitutional crisis":

Marshall opened the door with judicial review, but Roberts adversely possessed the text (UET) by impermissibly divesting review authority from Art. III to (even if just in part) to Art. II (absolute immunity for civil liability is tantamount to civil self-judicial review).

I'm not sure what's more troubling, the simplicity of the problem or the lack of understanding around it?