UPDATED @ 3:00 PM EDT — Rigby writes as follows:
“…Paul doesn’t allow non-subscribers to comment on his blog, but I sent him a personal message about his post, since he seems so intent on “both-sidesing” the issue:
…Regarding your latest post, as you likely know, a solution to judge shopping was proposed by the U.S. Judicial Conference last year, which announced a new (non-binding) policy requiring any cases seeking to block state or federal policies in federal district courts to be assigned randomly from larger pools of judges. This modest reform effort drew howls of protest from Republican lawmakers and conservative judges, who vowed not to follow this guidance….
Given the recent rulings against Trump’s policies, I hope the irony isn’t lost on them.
But it probably is….”
[And… as ever (16 out of the last 20 times), Mr. Obama is ahead of me, already — he had Creighton; I had Louisville — in the first game at lunchtime today. He was right. Hah!] End, Updated Portion.
So, I need not belabor this, but to the extent that Stephen Miller suggests insurrection here, in response to court decisions he disagrees with — Mr. Mirengoff’s language should be more direct: people like Miller may well need to sit in jail for a few nights, for contempt of federal court orders — that is likely the only way to get through to morons like him, and Messrs. Ezell and Dill.
But Mirengoff’s ultimate conclusion is sound: soon enough, Tangerine will be out of office, and Democratic CoCs will bury all of this… lawfully.
In the mean time, MAGAts should listen to Paul, here:
…[Some, including many in Tangerine 2.0’s orbit take the view] the president, not the judiciary, should be the ultimate arbiter of what is lawful under the laws of the U.S. including the Constitution. It’s not a case to which I subscribe [Ed. Note: the plain English meaning of the US Constitution points to the OPPOSITE conclusion — the Judiciary decides what the law is or is not, once the CONGRESS passes it]. Nor is it the way the American experiment in a nation of laws, not men, has operated, with considerable success, for more than two centuries.
I see no reason to abandon our traditional approach to resolving challenges to presidential authority just because Trump wants to get things done in a hurry. Arguably, Trump’s hurry is an argument in favor of the traditional approach — an argument that should, perhaps, be especially appealing to conservatives….
I would add that the case for this being any form of judicial over-reach (as Hinderaker, Johnson, Musk, Miller and Cruz are claiming) has… vanished. Both Trump appointees and Obama ones (and Clinton and Reagan ones, too!) have declared what he is doing… completely unlawful. By a margin of about 66 to 3, now.
The ship rights itself — that is the metaphor the founders left for us. And it is happening — in a chaotic and messy way. But it is happening.
Onward.
Powerline Lies... 
Paul doesn’t allow non-subscribers to comment on his blog, but I sent him a personal message about his post, since he seems so intent on both-sidesing the issue:
LikeLiked by 1 person